accelo_list_staff_memberships

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose useful traits such as limit being capped at 100 and page being 0-indexed, which the schema does not state. However it says nothing about safety profile, pagination totals, or auth requirements for what is presumably a 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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then a short clarification, then an Args block. No filler sentences, and each line earns its place, though the Args block is a fairly plain restatement pattern.

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 4-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description covers inputs well but says little about the response: what a membership record contains, whether pagination totals are returned, or default sort behavior. It is adequate but leaves gaps an agent would need to discover by calling the tool.

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 must compensate, and it does: it enumerates the filter keys (id, staff_id, group_id, order_by_asc/desc), gives an example expansion value for fields ('staff()'), and explains page (0-indexed) and limit (max 100). This adds real meaning beyond the bare schema, though the exact syntax of order_by_asc/desc values is left implicit.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('List staff group memberships from Accelo') and adds a clarifying sentence defining what a membership is ('links a staff member to a group'). There is no directly competing sibling (no other membership-listing tool), so sibling differentiation is not really required, but it also does not position itself relative to the related accelo_list_staff, accelo_list_groups, or accelo_list_contributors 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 description gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives (e.g., when to call list_staff or list_groups instead). Usage is only inferable from the tool name and the filters mentioned.

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