project_members

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds a meaningful behavioral constraint not in annotations: 'Requires membership, non-members cannot enumerate a project's members.' It also specifies the return fields, adding context beyond the schema.

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 main description is front-loaded and concise, with every sentence earning its place. The trailing Args block is redundant with the schema but not verbose enough to hurt clarity significantly.

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 tool with output schema and strong annotations, the description covers purpose, usage, return values, and access control. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100% and the description's Args section merely repeats the schema's parameter description ('The project name to inspect') without adding format, constraints, or additional semantics. 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 states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('agents currently in a project'), and clarifies the output (join timestamps). It distinguishes itself from siblings like agent_list (all agents) and project_list (projects) by focusing on membership within a single project.

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 says when to use: 'Use before sending project-wide messages or assigning tasks to confirm who has visibility into the project's shared memory.' It also gives a prerequisite (membership). It does not name alternatives or state when not to use, so it misses the top tier.

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