List Fathom Team Members

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations by specifying the pagination behavior ('Paginated list'), describing the return data structure, and providing concrete examples. It doesn't contradict annotations and enhances understanding of the tool's behavior.

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 well-structured with clear sections (purpose, args, returns, examples). Every sentence earns its place by providing necessary information. It's appropriately sized for a tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, with no redundant or unnecessary content.

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 read-only list tool with comprehensive annotations and 100% schema coverage, the description provides excellent completeness. It covers purpose, parameters, return format, pagination behavior, and includes practical examples. The lack of an output schema is compensated by the detailed return description in the text.

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 thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema - it restates the team parameter's purpose and provides examples, but doesn't add significant semantic context. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does most of the parameter documentation work.

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 the verb ('List') and resource ('team members') with specific scope ('of a specific team or all teams in Fathom'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like fathom_list_teams (which lists teams, not team members) and fathom_list_meetings (which lists meetings). The description provides concrete details about what information is retrieved.

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 clear context about filtering options ('specific team or all teams') and includes examples showing different usage scenarios. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or name specific alternatives among siblings (like when to use fathom_list_teams instead). The guidance is helpful but not exhaustive about alternatives.

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