list_rwa_members

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It merely states 'List', implying a read operation, but does not mention pagination behavior, ordering, response format, authentication needs, rate limits, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a tool with zero 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 of ten words. It is front-loaded with the action word 'List' and includes the key resource and scope. There is no redundancy, and every word contributes to the meaning.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description should provide more context about what the response contains, pagination limits, or any conditions. It is a bare one-liner that tells the core purpose but does not explain the shape of results or any non-obvious behavior. For a list tool with pagination parameters, this feels incomplete.

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 all three parameters, including 'page', 'items', and 'requested_project_id'. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, but the schema already provides the necessary context (page/items with defaults, internal project ID). Thus baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 the specific action (List), the resource (RWA committee members), and the context (for a project). This distinguishes it from sibling tools, which are mostly about other entities like flats, visitors, or vehicles. The verb and resource are unambiguous.

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 usage is implied: use this tool to retrieve RWA committee members for a project. However, there are no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions, no mention of alternatives, and no prerequisites. It provides only minimal context, leaving the agent to infer appropriateness.

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