teams_get_users

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It only states 'Get all users' implying a read operation, but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as read-only nature, pagination, sorting, or potential performance implications. This is insufficient for a safe agent decision.

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 concise sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and directly conveys the core function.

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?

Despite the tool's simplicity (1 param, no output schema), the description lacks information about the return value. Without specifying what 'users' means (e.g., list of user objects, IDs, etc.), the agent is left guessing. The context signals indicate no output schema, so the description should compensate, but it does not.

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 has 1 parameter 'id' with description 'ID of the team', achieving 100% schema description coverage. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as clarifying what 'a team' refers to or any format requirements. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'Get all users in a team' clearly states the action (get users) and the resource scope (in a team). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like 'teams_get_all' (all teams) and 'teams_get' (team details). However, it omits the required team ID parameter from the narrative, which is a minor clarity gap.

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?

No usage guidance is provided. The description does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'users_list' or 'teams_get_user_teams', nor does it mention prerequisites (e.g., the team must exist) or contextual scenarios.

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