project_members

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, non-destructive behavior. The description adds the return format (agent_id, join timestamp) and an access constraint (requires membership), which supplements the annotations well.

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?

Three sentences: purpose, usage guidance, and constraints/returns. Front-loaded and efficient, with no redundant wording.

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?

Fully covers what the tool does, when to use it, what it returns, and important constraints. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to detail return values, and the description sufficiently fills the 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?

The schema covers 100% of the single parameter, with a description matching the tool's description. The tool description does not add new parameter-level details beyond restating the schema, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 action (list), resource (agents in a project), and includes the return details (join timestamps). It distinguishes from sibling tools like project_join, project_leave, and project_list by focusing on membership enumeration.

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?

Explicitly advises use before sending messages or assigning tasks, and warns that non-members cannot list members. This provides clear context but could be improved by also noting when not to use (e.g., avoid if no project ID is available).

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