get_current_team_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. It mentions 'Shows who has access to team resources,' which adds some behavioral context about output content. However, it lacks details on permissions needed, rate limits, pagination, or what the list includes (e.g., roles, status). For a read operation with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient to fully inform the agent.

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 two concise sentences that are front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff. It efficiently communicates the tool's function and a key output detail.

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 low complexity (0 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. It explains what the tool does but lacks details on output format, error handling, or authentication requirements. With no output schema, the agent might need more guidance on return values, making this incomplete for optimal use.

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 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add param info, which is appropriate. Baseline is 4 for zero parameters, as the schema fully covers the absence of inputs.

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 ('Get') and resource ('list of all members in the currently authenticated team'), making the purpose specific and understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_current_team' (which likely returns team metadata) by focusing on members. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'list_teams' or 'get_team', which might be about listing multiple teams or getting a specific team's details, leaving slight 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., authentication state), exclusions, or compare to siblings like 'list_teams' or 'get_team'. The phrase 'currently authenticated team' implies context but doesn't specify when this is appropriate over other team-related tools.

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