bitbucket_workspace_member_list

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the description doesn't need to repeat safety. It adds value by mentioning the uuid output and that it's used for resolution, which helps the agent understand the expected output format without an output schema. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Two sentences with no fluff. The purpose is front-loaded, and the cross-reference to the pull request create tool is immediately useful. Every word earns its place.

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?

The tool has only 2 simple parameters/styles, no output schema, but the description tells the key purpose and return value (uuid). The annotations cover safety. Missing details like pagination or sorting are minor for a listing tool with defaults; the description is sufficient for an agent to call it correctly.

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 50% (workspace is described, maxItems is not). The description doesn't add parameter details beyond the schema, but with only one undocumented parameter and a default of 25, the agent can infer its meaning. The description's focus on uuid resolution adds context but not parameter-level semantics. Since schema covers half, a 4 is generous; the baseline is 3 but the description's clarity about the uuid output partially compensates.

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?

Clearly states the tool lists workspace members with their account uuid, and explains its specific purpose of resolving names to uuids for bitbucket_pull_request_create's reviewers argument. This differentiates it from sibling tools like bitbucket_workspace_list.

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 tells when to use it: to resolve a teammate's name to uuid for the pull request create reviewers argument, and notes that plain names are not accepted there. This gives clear guidance on the use case and the prerequisite for another tool.

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