List Team Members

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description's added value is the TEAM_DB_PATH prerequisite, which is genuine context. It does not say what happens when that env var is missing (error vs empty result) or whether listing spans all workspaces.

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 short sentences, zero waste, with purpose front-loaded before the prerequisite. Nothing is padded, though the brevity is also the source of the gaps noted above.

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?

An output schema and read-only annotations exist, so return values and safety need not be explained. Still, for a two-parameter team tool with an undocumented parameter and an unexplained TEAM_DB_PATH failure mode, the description leaves the agent with avoidable ambiguity.

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?

With only 50% schema coverage, the description must compensate, and it does not: neither workspace_id nor use_test_db is mentioned. The schema documents workspace_id well (including the negative example about numeric project IDs), but use_test_db remains entirely unexplained in both schema and description.

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 and resource ("List all registered team members") plus the returned attribute (roles), so the agent knows exactly what it fetches. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from team_get_member or team_list_author_aliases, which is the only thing separating it from a 5.

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 only guidance is the environment prerequisite "Requires TEAM_DB_PATH"; there is no statement of when to use this versus team_get_member (single member) or team_list_author_aliases. An agent must infer the bulk-listing use case from the name alone.

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