list_team_members

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, lowering the burden. The description adds genuine context beyond annotations: it filters to 'active' users, distinguishes the full-array vs paginated-envelope response, and states default page=1, limit=25. It ends with 'Read-only', which is redundant but harmless.

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?

Three tightly written sentences: purpose and fields first, pagination behavior second, downstream usage third. Every sentence carries information; no filler or repetition of schema details beyond what is useful.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description fully defines both return modes and the fields within each member, along with defaults and downstream use. For a simple tool with zero required parameters, nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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% for both parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by specifying the paginated envelope shape ({members, total, page, limit, pages}), the trigger condition ('passing page or limit'), and default values, going beyond what the schema alone conveys.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource—'List the active users of the caller's organization'—and enumerates the returned fields (user_id, name, email, role, status). It also names two sibling tools (update_team_member_role, remove_team_member), making the read-vs-mutation boundary explicit.

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?

It clearly explains the two calling modes—no arguments returns the full array, page/limit switches to a paginated envelope—with defaults provided. It also tells the agent to use the returned user_id with update_team_member_role or remove_team_member. It doesn't explicitly contrast with other read tools, but the usage context is unambiguous.

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