list_workspace_members

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the description isn't needed for the safety profile — yet it adds real value: permission requirements, per-role output variation (owners and admins also see key counts, connected AI apps and last use), and brand-scoped visibility. It does not disclose pagination or result-size limits, which is the main remaining behavioral gap for a listing tool.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then payload, then permissions, then visibility caveats — a sensible order. It is a dense single paragraph with some stacked clauses ("from their own keys and AI apps"), but nearly every clause carries information an agent would otherwise have to guess.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must carry the return-value burden, and it does: it names the member fields, invite info, seat counts, and admin-only extra fields. Combined with the auth requirements, an agent could call this correctly; only pagination/result limits are unaddressed.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage on a single required parameter, the schema already explains workspace_id (sourced from whoami). The description only implies the workspace scoping and adds no format or acquisition detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource ("List the people in a workspace") and immediately enumerates what is covered — members with role/status/brand access/API access, pending invites, and seats in use. An agent can distinguish this read-only roster tool from the sibling manage_workspace_member without opening the schema.

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?

Gives concrete preconditions: an API key with the Manage team permission, and the note that any workspace member can list while brand-limited teammates only see accessible brand ids. What's missing is an explicit routing statement (e.g., "use manage_workspace_member to change a role"), so when-not-to-use is only implied by the verb contrast.

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