list_members

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, so the description's burden is to add context such as pagination, result limits, or required access. It adds none of that — "all members" leaves open whether results are paginated or truncated, which matters for a list tool.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though its brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined density.

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 one-parameter read tool this could be adequate, but with no parameter documentation, no output schema, and no note on pagination or default workspace, an agent cannot call it fully correctly without guessing.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the single undocumented parameter, but it only restates "workspace" without saying whether it is an ID or slug, optional or required, or what the default scope is when omitted. Given zero coverage, this is a real gap.

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?

"List all members in the workspace" gives a specific verb (list) and resource (members) plus scope (workspace), so the agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It does not distinguish itself from the many list_* siblings (list_persons, list_workspaces, list_channels), so it stops short of 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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus alternatives — nothing tells the agent whether list_persons or list_workspaces is the right call for a related question. The only implied guidance is "all", which weakly suggests it is not a filtered search.

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