asana_get_users_in_team

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. However, it only repeats the tool's name without revealing pagination behavior (limit/offset), return format, or any specifics like whether the result is a list of user objects. It does not state what happens when a team is empty or invalid. Minimal value beyond the name.

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: 'Get users in a team'. There is zero waste, and each word contributes to the core purpose. It is appropriately sized for a simple list operation.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not mention that the tool returns a paginated list of users, that limit/offset control pagination, or any caveats about team visibility. For a 4-parameter tool with one required parameter, the description fails to convey the operational context needed for an agent to confidently invoke it.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters clearly. The description adds no extra meaning about parameter usage (e.g., that team_gid is required, or how offset paginates). Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states a specific verb+resource: 'Get users in a team'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like asana_get_user (single user), asana_get_users_in_workspace (workspace context), and asana_get_multiple_users (potentially by IDs), making the team-scoped listing unambiguous.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this is for team membership specifically, nor does it contrast with workspace-level or single-user retrieval. Sibling tool names imply alternatives but the description itself provides no exclusions or context.

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