List team members

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered and 'Read-only' merely repeats it. The description does add one genuinely new fact not in annotations — that the call is free — plus the returned field set, but says nothing about pagination, size limits, or ordering.

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 tight sentence with the resource front-loaded and the returned fields and cost caveat appended; nothing is padded or repeated.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the returned fields (email, role, status), which is exactly the gap it should fill for a simple zero-param read tool. Only ordering/pagination behavior is left unspecified, a minor omission at this complexity.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; the description correctly offers no parameter detail and instead describes output fields, which is the relevant information for a no-arg call.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List the members of the current profile') and names the fields returned (email, role, status), so the agent knows exactly what comes back. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling team-mutation tools invite_member, remove_member, and set_role, which all act on the same resource.

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?

'Read-only, free' implies this is the safe inspection call and hints at a when-to-use condition (no cost, no mutation), but it never names the alternatives or states an explicit trigger such as 'use this before set_role or remove_member to find member identities'.

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