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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful scope context (defaults to the current workspace, agents are assignable like people), but says nothing about return shape or ordering, so it is solid rather than rich.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded ahead of the optional parameter note. Every sentence carries information.

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 simple read-only list tool with full annotation coverage, a fully described two-parameter schema, and no output schema, the description covers scope, default workspace behavior, and the agent-inclusion nuance. Only the returned fields beyond 'roles' remain unstated, which is a minor gap.

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%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema, including the include_agents default of true and the non-persistent nature of in_workspace. The description restates include_agents behavior and never mentions in_workspace, so it adds little beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('List the members of the current workspace with their roles') and adds intent ('so you know who can be assigned a task'), which clearly separates it from workspace_list or workspace_member_update. It does not, however, name any sibling tool explicitly to route the agent, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied through the purpose clause ('so you know who can be assigned a task') and the include_agents note; there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this tool over workspace_list or workspace_member_remove. The agent must infer the context.

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