List Teams Team Members

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the core action ('List members and owners') and does not mention pagination behavior, required permissions, whether owners are also included as members, or any response format. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotation support.

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 with the main purpose stated first. The Chinese intent phrases are supplementary but do not create bloat. Every part serves a purpose, making it very concise and well-structured.

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 simple list tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate in stating the core purpose. However, it does not elaborate on return structure, pagination, or potential access requirements, leaving some gaps for an agent needing full operational 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?

The input schema already describes both parameters at 100% coverage ('Teams team ID', 'Number of members to return'). The description adds no additional semantic value for the parameters beyond reinforcing the team-level scope, so the baseline score of 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 states exactly what the tool does: 'List members and owners of a Microsoft Teams team.' This is a specific verb and resource, and it clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like teams_list_channel_members and teams_list_chat_members by specifying 'of a Microsoft Teams team'.

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 for when to use the tool (to list team members/owners) but does not explicitly mention exclusions or alternatives. It is clear enough to infer usage, but lacks a direct 'when not to use' statement differentiating it from related membership tools.

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