list_org_team

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It mentions 'cursor-paginated', which is useful, but does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or describe any other side effects. Since listing is inherently non-destructive, the lack of explicit safety language is a moderate gap.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose and immediately mentions pagination. There is no redundant or extraneous content, making it appropriately concise for a simple tool.

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?

For a simple list tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the main functionality and pagination behavior. However, it does not explicitly mention what fields are returned or any default ordering, though these might be inferred from the resource name. This is a minor omission.

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 100%, and both parameters (cursor and page_size) are already well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'organisation team members', making the purpose unambiguous. It also notes pagination, which is a key characteristic. It stands out distinctly from sibling tools, which focus on assessments, interviews, or other domains.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus any alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. There is no context about typical use cases or relationships to similar listing tools (e.g., list_squad_members).

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