team_members

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the load. It explicitly discloses read-only behavior and the privacy-relevant fact that no display names or PII are returned, which is valuable context beyond the empty schema. It does not mention required permissions or auth scope, but the safety profile is substantially covered.

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 tightly written sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, followed immediately by field and privacy details.

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 and an existing output schema, the description is nearly complete. It covers the purpose, read-only nature, privacy posture, and returned field semantics. A small gap remains around permissions or what 'admitted' excludes (e.g., pending members), but overall it is sufficient.

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 takes no parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds useful detail about return fields (opaque principal UID, DEK epoch, wrap public key, genesis owner), even though a full output schema already exists.

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?

Uses a specific verb ('List') and a precise resource ('admitted team members (the derived ACL)'), then enumerates the returned fields. This clearly distinguishes it from team_device_list, team_grant, team_revoke, team_role_set, and other team_* siblings.

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 purpose implies when to use it (to inspect the admitted ACL), but it never states when not to use it or names a specific alternative among the many sibling tools. An agent can infer usage, but must do the routing work itself.

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