list_team_members

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only restates the basic action. It does not mention pagination (page/per_page), the role filter, or that it returns a list of members with their metadata. This leaves the agent uninformed about important behavior.

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 sentence with a docs link, concise and free of redundant text. It is front-loaded with the core action, making it easy to parse.

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 has 5 parameters (including pagination and an enum) and no output schema, the description is too minimal. It omits pagination behavior, role filtering, and the return shape, leaving the agent with insufficient context for a full understanding.

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 input schema covers org, team_slug, and role with descriptions, but page and per_page lack descriptions (60% coverage). The tool description adds no parameter information, failing to compensate for the missing schema details or clarify pagination semantics.

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 states 'List the members of a GitHub team' with a clear verb and resource. It is distinct from sibling tools like list_org_members (org-level) and get_team_by_name (team metadata), but it does not explicitly mention these alternatives, so it lacks the differentiation seen in top-tier examples.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention related tools like list_org_members or get_team_by_name, nor does it specify conditions such as needing a team slug or handling pagination. The intended context is only implied by the tool name.

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