get_team_members

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool returns removed members (a behavioral trait), but omits information about read-only nature, pagination, rate limits, or authentication requirements. While better than a tautology, it leaves gaps.

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 exceptionally concise: two short sentences that convey the tool's core purpose and return values without any fluff. Every word earns its place.

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 low complexity (no params, simple list), the description is fairly complete. It states the output fields and that all members are included. However, it could mention whether results are paginated or limited, but this is a minor gap.

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, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no param-specific detail, but none is needed as the schema already covers 100% of (nonexistent) parameters.

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 lists team members with their roles and status, specifying the exact fields returned (name, email, role, removed status). This verb+resource combination is distinct from sibling tools like get_team_overview or get_user_deep_dive.

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. For example, it doesn't mention that get_team_overview might be better for summary stats, or that get_user_deep_dive would be for individual details. The agent must infer the context from the tool name alone.

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