اعضای میزکار

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing the returned fields and decoding the role values (0 member, 1 admin, 2 guest) plus the invited/removed state, which the agent cannot get from annotations or schema.

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 waste, with the resource and scope front-loaded and the role encoding compactly inlined. Every clause earns its place.

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 carries the return-value burden and does list the fields. It stops short of explaining formatting or ordering of fields like 'last seen', so a minor gap remains, but an agent has enough to call and interpret the tool.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to clarify beyond the implicit scope of 'active workspace', which it does state.

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+resource ('Members of the active workspace') and enumerates the returned fields, so the agent knows exactly what this returns. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from neighbors like mizito_whoami or mizito_workspace_info, which is the only thing keeping it from 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?

'Use these ids for assignees, recipients, members and approvers' tells the agent what the output feeds into, which is genuinely useful downstream context. However, it gives no when-not guidance and names no alternative for the adjacent people/workspace lookups, so usage is only implied.

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