scf_list_members

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, and the description does not contradict it. It adds useful behavior context by stating that members are returned with their roles, including the exact allowed role values. It does not discuss pagination or permission prerequisities, but those are minor for a simple read-only list operation.

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?

One sentence containing only essential information, with the verb and primary scope front-loaded. There is no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 one-parameter read-only list operation, the description plus schema gives enough to invoke the tool correctly and anticipate the core output (members with roles). The absence of an output schema and explicit return-shape details is a minor gap, as 'List members' already implies a collection of member entries.

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%: the only parameter, org_id, is fully described as an Organization UUID with source guidance. The tool description itself adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

Description starts with a specific verb 'List', names the exact resource 'members', and scopes it to 'one organization'. It also enumerates the expected role values (admin, editor, or viewer), making the tool's purpose immediately clear and distinguishable from sibling org/resource tools.

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 schema parameter note 'obtain from scf_list_organizations' provides a clear workflow cue: an agent should first list organizations, then pick an org_id. However, the description does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternatives such as scf_get_organization, so it stops short of a 5.

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