List members

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond output content (role and status) and does not mention pagination, errors, or auth, which is typical for such a simple read 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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. Every word contributes to the meaning, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one required parameter), the presence of an output schema, and annotations ensuring safety, the description covers the core purpose adequately. It lacks only minor details like sorting or edge-case behavior, which are likely captured in the output schema.

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% for the sole parameter project_id. The description does not explain the parameter beyond implying it identifies the project. It fails to add meaning such as format, examples, or constraints, so it does not compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 states exactly what the tool does: 'List a project’s team members', naming the resource (team members) and including useful output specifics (role and status). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_projects and list_comments.

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 makes the intended usage clear: call this when you need team members for a given project. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is unambiguous enough that an agent would know when to use it.

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