weeek_list_members

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It doesn't mention whether this is read-only, what happens on error, or return format details. Listing is implicitly read-only but this is never stated. Being a list tool, the risk profile is relatively low, but there's no explicit statement.

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?

One concise sentence that states the action, the returned fields, and a practical pointer (use ids as assignees). Zero wasted words. Ideal structure for a parameterless list tool.

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 parameterless list tool, the description is reasonably complete. It names the output fields and gives usage guidance. However, it doesn't describe pagination, sorting, or whether the list may be large, and given no output schema exists, it could benefit from a bit more detail on return structure. Still adequate for the tool's simplicity.

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?

There are 0 parameters, and schema coverage is 100%, meaning there's nothing the description needs to document. With no params, the dimension imposes no burden. The description covers the full scope since the tool takes no arguments.

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: lists workspace members. Identifies returned fields (id, name, email) which adds specificity. Distinguishes from siblings (weeek_list_projects, weeek_list_boards deal with other resources), though it doesn't explicitly name them.

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 the tool is used to obtain member ids for assignment purposes ('use their ids as assignees'), which provides a use case context. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs alternatives (e.g., weeek_whoami or other member-related tools). The usage is implied rather than stated.

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