get_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 only says 'Get list', implying a read, but does not disclose pagination, ordering, membership roles included, permission requirements, or response format. For a simple list tool, minimal behavior disclosure is still lacking.

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 concise sentence of eight words, clearly front-loaded with the verb and resource. No wasted words or redundancy.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description is extremely sparse. It does not clarify what 'members' means (users? roles?), whether the list is sorted, or what happens if the team doesn't exist. For a list operation, an agent would benefit from at least a note about response structure or edge cases.

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 schema fully describes the single parameter 'teamId' with type and description. The description adds no additional meaning beyond connecting 'team' to teamId. Baseline 3 applies because schema coverage is 100% and no extra context is needed.

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 action ('Get list') and resource ('all members in a team'), which is distinct from sibling tools like get_team or get_team_invitations. It specifies the scope ('all members') and is unambiguous.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many team-related siblings (get_team, get_team_invitations, update_team_member_role), an agent is not told when this tool is appropriate or what it returns differently.

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