bitrix_list_project_members

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the transparency burden. It does indicate a read-only list operation and names the output fields (ID, role, name), but it does not mention authentication needs, error behavior, membership filtering, pagination, or response structure beyond the implied list.

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 compact sentence that front-loads the action and object and ends with the useful output summary. There is no filler, repetition, or unnecessary content.

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 low-complexity read-only list tool, the description plus schema is sufficient to make a call: schema explains the optional parameters, and the description explains the purpose and returned fields. Some extra detail about error cases or response shape could improve it, but these are not critical for basic invocation.

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 already documents both groupId and project clearly, including the cross-reference to bitrix_list_projects and the condition for omitting project. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 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 ('Список' — list), the resource ('участников проекта/воркгруппы'), and the returned fields (ID, role, name). This distinguishes it from sibling membership-mutation tools like bitrix_add_project_members, bitrix_remove_project_members, and bitrix_update_project_member_role.

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 itself gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives. The nearest usage context comes from the schema: 'см. bitrix_list_projects' for obtaining the group ID and the note that project can be omitted if unique. That is helpful but is parameter-oriented rather than a clear selection policy among sibling tools.

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