List Card Members

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, so safety is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail: it returns an array of user objects, includes a `type` field (1=member, 2=responsible), and notes verbosity affects detail. It does not define what each verbosity level returns, which is a minor gap.

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 three focused sentences: purpose, type semantics, and source/return shape. Every sentence earns its place, and the most important scoping information is front-loaded.

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 tool with no output schema, it explains purpose, required parameter source, return shape, and the added `type` field. It could be more complete by describing the user-object fields across verbosity levels, but the annotations cover the safety profile and the description covers the core invocation contract.

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 cardId and verbosity are already documented structurally. The description restates the cardId source and references verbosity, but it adds no new parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('users assigned to a card'), and explicitly distinguishes members from the responsible user with the `type` field encoding. This makes it clearly distinct from sibling member-mutation tools like kaiten_add_card_member and kaiten_set_card_responsible.

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?

It provides useful context by telling the agent where cardId comes from (kaiten_search_cards or kaiten_get_card), but it never states when to prefer this tool over siblings such as kaiten_add_card_member or kaiten_list_space_users, nor does it mention exclusions. Usage is mostly implied by the name and purpose.

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