list_squad_members

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that results are 'cursor-paginated' and that the feature requires 'Growth+', which is helpful, but it does not mention side effects (it is clearly a read operation but that is not stated), error behavior, authentication requirements, or rate limits. For a simple list tool, the disclosure is minimal.

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?

A single sentence with no wasted words. The action is front-loaded ('List members'), and the qualifying factors (pagination and plan requirement) are tucked into parentheses. It is highly concise and well-structured.

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?

The tool is simple (list members, paginated), but the description is sparse. It does not explain what a squad is, what the return structure looks like (no output schema exists), or any prerequisites beyond 'Growth+', which is mentioned but not explained. There is no guidance on handling invalid team_id or expected page behavior. Given the lack of an output schema, the description should provide more context about the response.

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 67% (cursor and page_size have descriptions; team_id does not). The description adds no information about any of the parameters, including team_id which is required. It does not clarify that team_id identifies the hiring squad or provide any syntax or expected format beyond what the schema already states. The description fails to compensate for the missing team_id 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?

The description clearly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'members of a hiring squad', which is specific and differentiates from sibling tools like list_squads (lists squads) and get_squad (gets a single squad). The qualifiers 'cursor-paginated' and 'Growth+' add distinct context without ambiguity.

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 implies usage by naming the operation, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. There is no mention of get_squad for retrieving a single squad or list_squads for listing all squads, so the guidance is only implicit.

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