list_card_members

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds nothing on top of that. It omits pagination behavior even though the schema exposes previous_page, text_offsets and section_offsets, and says nothing about the summary vs full detail mode or result size.

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?

A single tight sentence with the resource front-loaded and zero filler. It is appropriately front-loaded, though its brevity shades into under-specification rather than pure efficiency.

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 an 8-parameter tool with nested objects, cursor pagination and a low 38% schema coverage, one sentence is not enough. The output schema means return values need not be explained, but the description should at least anchor the card identifier and the pagination/detail controls that dominate the 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 only 38% across 8 parameters, so the description is expected to compensate and does not. The words 'participants' and 'roles' loosely hint at the detail=full option, but card_id, url, limit, offset and the whole cursor-pagination family are left undocumented by both the schema and the description.

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?

Clear verb+resource: reads card participants and their roles. An agent can distinguish it from siblings like list_card_comments, list_card_tags or list_subtasks, which cover different card sub-resources. It stops short of 5 because it doesn't state scope (single card? which card identifier) or name any sibling it is not.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, no exclusions. The description never says when to prefer this over get_card (which may also return participants) or how it relates to the other list_card_* tools. Usage must be entirely inferred from the name.

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