list_team_members

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

No annotations exist, so the description must carry the burden. It only states the basic function and role filter, omitting any behavioral aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination, or whether the output is list or paginated. The presence of an output schema is not reflected in the description.

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 very concise, using only two sentences to convey purpose and a parameter option. There is no unnecessary information, but the structure could be improved by front-loading the purpose more explicitly.

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 the lack of annotations and the presence of an output schema, the description should cover prerequisites, required parameters, and constraints. It does not mention that org and team_slug are required, nor does it explain any special behaviors. Completeness is low for a tool with no annotations.

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 0%, requiring the description to compensate. It partially does by enumerating valid role values ('all', 'maintainer', 'member'), but does not describe org or team_slug. The description adds some meaning to one of three parameters, which is helpful but incomplete.

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 the resource 'members of a team', which aligns with the tool name. The addition of role options adds specificity. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like list_organization_members or list_repo_collaborators, but the context makes it distinct.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_organization_members for org-level member listing or list_repo_collaborators for repository collaborators. There is no mention of prerequisites or exclusions.

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