list_org_members

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It only says 'List all members', implying a read operation returning a list. No details are given about pagination, ordering, permissions, or what exactly is returned (e.g., member IDs, email addresses). This is minimal behavioral disclosure.

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 extremely concise at two words, which is appropriate for a simple, param-free tool. It is front-loaded with the action and scope. However, adding a brief note on the organizational context would improve clarity without sacrificing conciseness.

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 tool with no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is minimally adequate. It specifies the action and scope but lacks details on the return format, membership scope (organization members implied but not explicit), and any constraints like rate limits. More context would be beneficial.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema is fully descriptive. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, but the baseline for zero parameters is 4, as per guidelines. The description adequately conveys what the tool does without needing param details.

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 uses a clear verb 'List' and resource 'all members', which directly states the tool's action. It distinguishes from sibling 'get_org_member' by specifying 'all', but does not explicitly mention the organization scope, relying on the tool name for that context.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_org_member' or other member manipulation tools. The description lacks any context on prerequisites, such as authentication requirements or typical use cases.

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