npm_org_members

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

Annotations already cover the safe, read-only, idempotent nature of the tool. The description adds the authentication requirement and that roles are included in the output, but no details on pagination, error cases, or response structure. It provides moderate additional context beyond the 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?

The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the action and resource, and includes essential context (authentication requirement) without redundancy. It is well-structured and efficient.

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 simple read-only tool with one parameter and comprehensive annotations, the description adequately covers purpose and auth. It could include more about response format or exclusions, but given the tool's simplicity and annotation coverage, it is largely complete.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for the sole parameter 'org', including the note about '@' prefix. The tool description does not add further parameter semantics, so the schema carries the full burden, resulting in a baseline score of 3.

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 a specific action ('List all members') with a specific resource ('npm organization') and includes expected output ('roles owner, admin, developer'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like npm_team_members or npm_maintainers by explicitly focusing on org members.

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 implies usage by stating the purpose and an authentication prerequisite, but it does not explicitly compare to alternatives (e.g., 'Use npm_team_members for team-level membership'). There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance beyond the clear purpose.

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