Teams: List Agents in Team

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower, and the description adds concrete invocation context: the required auth method and header (api-access-token) plus encoding behavior for Persian/Arabic-Indic digits. It still omits return shape and pagination, but the auth disclosure is genuinely useful beyond structured fields.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded ahead of the endpoint, auth, and encoding notes, and it stays short. The trailing language/digits sentence is generic boilerplate but brief.

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 read-only list with full schema coverage and clear annotations, the essentials are present, but with no output schema the description gives no indication of what the response contains or how results are returned.

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 coverage is 100% and both parameters are documented in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, and notably does not address the schema's odd 'team to be updated' wording on a read-only list tool.

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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (agents in a team) with the scoping parameter team_id, which separates it from gapify_list_agents. It is clear what the tool does, though it never explicitly names or contrasts the sibling it could be confused with.

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 name and the team_id scope imply the usage (retrieve membership for one team), but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-to-prefer-an-alternative guidance, e.g. versus gapify_list_agents or gapify_list_inbox_agents.

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