List team members

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds useful context about workspace scoping and output fields. It does not disclose potential limitations such as pagination or workspace-switching behavior, but for a zero-parameter read-only list the annotations carry most of the safety burden.

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?

A single, information-dense sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then adds scope and output fields. No filler, no repetition of the title, and every phrase contributes to understanding.

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?

For a zero-parameter, read-only, non-destructive list tool, the description is complete: it identifies the resource, scope, output fields, and cost/safety profile. No output schema exists, but the description sufficiently conveys what the agent should expect.

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?

There are zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents the input surface. The description adds contextual meaning about what is being listed and the fields returned, which is appropriate for a no-parameter tool.

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?

Description states a specific verb ('List'), specific resource ('members of the current brand workspace'), and expected output fields (email, role, status). It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like invite_member, remove_member, and set_role, which perform different team-management actions.

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 clearly frames this as a read-only listing operation scoped to the current brand workspace, and the 'free' note implies no cost or side effects. It does not explicitly list exclusions or alternatives, but the context makes the intended usage evident against siblings that modify membership.

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