list_team_members

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the tool returns the number of members and lists each member, but doesn't cover critical aspects like pagination, rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or whether it's a read-only operation. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how to use it effectively.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with the main purpose stated first and parameter details following. It uses minimal sentences without unnecessary fluff, though the parameter explanation could be slightly more integrated for optimal structure.

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 tool's moderate complexity (single parameter, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is partially complete. It covers the purpose and parameter semantics adequately, but lacks behavioral details and usage guidelines. The presence of an output schema helps, but overall it's only minimally viable for an agent to use correctly.

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 description adds meaningful context for the single parameter 'id', specifying that it's required and identifies the team for which the list is requested. With 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, this compensates well, providing clear semantics beyond the basic schema.

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's purpose with specific verbs ('returns', 'lists') and resources ('members in the specified team'), making it easy to understand what it does. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_team' or 'lookup_teams', which might have overlapping functionality, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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 alternatives, such as 'get_team' or 'lookup_teams', which could also retrieve team-related information. There's no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or specific contexts for usage.

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