List members

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

No annotations or output schema exist, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clarifies that results are legal assignee values and warns about name ambiguity, but doesn't state return shape, pagination, or any ordering/filter behavior. Still, for a zero-parameter list call the core behavior is reasonably clear.

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?

Two short sentences; the key scoping detail ('legal assignee values') and operational preference (email over names) are front-loaded in a compact format.

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 parameterless listing tool with no output schema and no sibling ambiguity on resource type, the description provides enough context: what is returned and how to disambiguate members. It doesn't mention pagination or output fields, but this is a minimal tool requiring little extra context.

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 the schema has no properties. The description adds useful semantic context about what the returned members represent ('legal assignee values') rather than being a bare tautology.

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 identifies the tool's purpose: listing the team's members, specifically as legal assignee values. The verb 'list' plus the resource 'members' is unambiguoushare and is distinguished from sibling list-* tools by clarifying what is being listed.

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?

Provides concrete usage guidance: prefer matching by email because names are ambiguous. This tells an agent how to correctly use the returned data. It doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling list tools, but each sibling targets a different resource, so no exclusion is necessary.

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