list_team_members

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral disclosure responsibility. It merely states the action without revealing traits like authentication requirements, pagination behavior, or read-only nature. The 'limit' parameter hints at pagination but is not explained.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. While concise, it could be slightly expanded to include key details without sacrificing brevity.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the lack of output schema and annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not specify the return format, pagination behavior, or how to handle the fallback logic for teamId/slug. The tool has moderate complexity with three parameters, but the description is too sparse to fully contextualize its usage.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema already provides full descriptions for all three parameters (limit, teamId, slug) with 100% coverage. The description adds no new semantic information beyond what the schema states, meeting the baseline expectation.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses the verb 'list' and the resource 'members of a team', making the purpose clear. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_team' or 'list_teams', which could confuse an AI agent about which tool to use when listing team-related information.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not specify scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusion criteria. The AI agent is left to infer usage from the name alone.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.