list_members

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It indicates a read operation ('List'), which is non-destructive, but does not disclose rate limits, authentication requirements, or any pagination behavior. With zero parameters and no output schema, the description is minimal but not misleading.

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?

A single, concise sentence that contains the essential action ('List all members') and scope ('associated with your LGM workspace'). No fluff or redundancy.

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?

Given the tool has no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is nearly complete for a simple list operation. It could benefit from noting if the response includes any identifying details (e.g., names, IDs), but the current text effectively conveys the core functionality.

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 are zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (nothing to document). The description adds no param-specific details because none exist. Baseline 4 is appropriate as the schema conveys all necessary information.

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 clearly states the tool lists all members (users) in the workspace. The verb 'List' and resource 'members' are specific, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like list_audiences or search_lead by focusing on workspace members.

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 implies usage when you need a list of workspace members, but it does not provide when-not-to-use guidance or mention alternatives among siblings (e.g., list_identities might return a different set of users). No explicit exclusion or comparison is given.

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