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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is settled. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: roles are *effective* roles derived from three distinct sources (explicit grant, workspace-admin, workspace-role baseline on open projects), which the agent cannot infer from the schema. It does not mention ordering, pagination, or handling of large rosters.

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, zero filler. The capability statement comes first and the usage trigger second, which is the right front-loading for an agent skimming tool lists. The parenthetical role enumeration earns its space by defining the returned values.

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 output schema, the description partially discharges the return-value burden by naming the three role values and the three access provenance categories. It leaves unspecified whether results are paginated, sorted, or include workspace admins who have never touched the project. Given a one-parameter read tool, this is nearly complete.

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?

There is a single parameter (projectId) with 100% schema description coverage ('Project UUID.'), so the schema already does the work. The description adds no format, resolution, or fallback guidance for the parameter. Baseline 3 is correct when the schema carries the burden.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List everyone who can access a Stride project') plus the scope of what is returned (effective role and access provenance). It is unambiguously distinct from add_project_member, remove_project_member, update_project_member_role, and list_projects without needing to name them.

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?

Gives an explicit usage trigger: 'Use before assigning work, to check the person can actually open the project.' That anchors the tool to a concrete workflow, though it stops short of stating when not to use it (e.g. versus the mutating member tools) or any permission prerequisites for reading the roster.

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