List Team Members

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds only a workflow hint (team_list) rather than behavioral traits like pagination, ordering, or error handling. With strong annotations, the description provides minimal additional behavioral context, so 3 is appropriate.

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 extremely concise, with two sentences that front-load the main purpose and then supply the key prerequisite. No filler or wasted words; every sentence earns its place.

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?

For a list tool with no output schema, the description is sufficient given the rich annotated schema. It does not explicitly mention pagination or the query filter, but these are covered by parameter descriptions. The main omission is not stating what the response contains, but this is reasonable for a simple list operation.

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 coverage is 100%, providing full descriptions for all four parameters. However, the description adds meaningful context by stating that team_id is 'returned by team_list', linking the parameter to its source. This extra semantic beyond the schema justifies a score above the baseline of 3.

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 'List members of a team by team ID' with a specific verb and resource, and it distinguishes itself from the sibling tool team_list by focusing on members rather than teams. It also includes a direct reference to team_list for resolving team IDs, which removes 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 explicitly instructs the agent to 'Call team_list first when you need to resolve the team_id from a team name', providing a clear prerequisite and workflow for correct usage. This is direct, actionable guidance that differentiates this tool from the alternative of using team_list alone.

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