get_card_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 states 'Get members assigned to a card' with no disclosure of return format, pagination behavior, permissions required, or how fields/detailLevel affect results. This is a significant gap for a tool with 5 parameters and rich schema options.

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, front-loaded with the primary action, and the second sentence adds practical usage. No wasted words, making it appropriately concise and well-structured.

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 tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, the description is minimal but adequate for a simple getter. It lacks behavioral details like return values or response shape, and does not mention how the various list-related parameters (maxItems, summarize) should be used. However, the schema compensates for parameter semantics, so completeness is borderline adequate.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already documents. It does not mention that cardId is required or explain the customization options, but the schema covers them adequately.

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 ('Get') and clear resource ('members assigned to a card'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_board_members (board-level) and add_member/remove_member by focusing on retrieval for a specific card. The added purpose ('see who is responsible for a task') clarifies why this tool exists.

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?

The description explicitly states a use case ('Use this to see who is responsible for a task'), giving clear context. However, it does not mention alternatives like get_board_members or exclude board-level scenarios, so it stops short of full guidance.

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