list_memberships

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 states it's a list operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't disclose critical traits like pagination (hinted by 'max' parameter), rate limits, authentication requirements, or what the output looks like (no output schema). For a tool with 4 parameters and no annotations, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('List memberships in a Webex room'). There is no wasted verbiage, repetition, or unnecessary elaboration, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.

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's complexity (4 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., pagination, auth), output format, and usage context versus siblings. While concise, it doesn't provide enough context for an agent to confidently invoke the tool without relying heavily on the schema and external knowledge.

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 schema fully documents all 4 parameters (roomId, max, personEmail, personId). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining parameter interactions (e.g., filtering by email vs. ID) or default behaviors. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('memberships in a Webex room'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'get_membership_details' (singular) and 'list_team_memberships' (different resource). However, it doesn't specify the scope (e.g., all memberships vs. filtered) or explicitly contrast with 'list_people' (which might overlap in listing persons).

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention siblings like 'list_team_memberships' (for team contexts) or 'get_membership_details' (for single membership details), nor does it indicate prerequisites (e.g., needing roomId). Usage is implied by the name but not explicitly stated.

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