List space members

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

Annotations already carry readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the description needn't repeat those. It adds beyond annotations: required OAuth scope (chat.memberships.readonly or chat.memberships), the space-membership prerequisite, and behavioral nuance such as INVITED/NOT_A_MEMBER states and inclusion of Google Groups.

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?

Three purpose-dense sentences: output shape, filter semantics, and required scope. Every sentence earns its place and there is no filler, though the first sentence is packed and could be slightly more scannable.

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 takes on the burden of explaining return values, and it does so thoroughly (name, member, role, state with enumerated values). It also covers prerequisites and the main filters. It omits pagination details and error conditions, but page_size/page_token are covered in the schema.

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 already documents all 6 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that role filters to managers/members, show_invited surfaces invited-but-not-joined users, show_groups includes Google Groups, and that the 'name' field is the handle for manage_members. page_size and page_token are already well-described in the schema.

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 ('Lists') and resource ('memberships in a space'), then enumerates exactly which fields are returned (name, member, role, state). This distinguishes it from siblings like list_spaces and get_space, and it even notes how the returned name maps to the manage_members tool.

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?

Describes clear context: use this to see memberships, roles, states, and to obtain the membership handle manage_members needs. It also states prerequisites (scope and space membership). It does not explicitly name an alternative or say when-not-to-use, so it stops short of a 5.

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