github_list_org_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 documents parameter semantics and defaults, which is behavioral context, but does not disclose authentication requirements, rate limits, or error conditions. It does not contradict annotations since none exist.

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 concise docstring with a purpose line followed by a parameter list. Every sentence adds value, with no filler or repetition. It is well-structured and front-loaded.

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?

The tool has 4 parameters, an output schema, and no annotations. The description covers all parameters and pagination, but it does not clarify how the organization is determined (e.g., from authentication context) or when to use this tool vs siblings. Given the output schema exists, return values are handled elsewhere, so the description is mostly complete with a minor gap.

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 fully compensates. It explains every parameter (role, filter, per_page, page) with allowed values and defaults, adding meaning far beyond the bare schema titles.

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 states 'List members of the GitHub organization' with a clear verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'github_get_org_membership' (specific membership) and 'github_list_org_invitations' (invitations, not 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 via the verb 'List' and resource, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusions. Sibling tools handle membership modifications and invitations, so the use case is implied rather than explicit.

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