get_team_members

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full transparency burden. It discloses the tool returns data (safe, read-only), but does not mention authentication requirements or rate limits. For a simple lookup with no parameters, the description is adequate but could explicitly state it is a safe read operation.

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 sentences, each earning its place: first describes what the tool does, second provides usage guidance. No fluff, well-structured, and front-loaded with essential information.

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 zero parameters, a description of the output (three fields), usage guidance, and the presence of an output schema (not shown but noted), the description is fully complete for this simple tool. No gaps.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the input schema is fully documented (empty). The baseline for 0 params is 4; no additional parameter details are needed. The description does not repeat schema content.

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 tool returns all active Filum team members with specific fields (user_id, name, email). It uses a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('team members'), and is distinct from all sibling tools which focus on tasks or projects.

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?

Explicitly instructs to use this tool 'to look up valid assignees before calling create_tasks', providing a clear when-to-use scenario and linking to a sibling tool. No exclusions needed; the guidance is direct and actionable.

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