list_workspace_members

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose read-only nature, required permissions, pagination, or effects. The phrase 'assignee choices' hints at the output format but lacks explicit behavioral details.

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 very concise (one sentence), which is front-loaded. However, it lacks necessary detail, making it borderline under-specified. It is not verbose, but could be more informative without losing 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?

Given no output schema, the description should explain return value structure (e.g., list of user objects with id/name). It only says 'assignee choices', which is vague. Also, it doesn't clarify that Organization is effectively required despite being optional in schema. Incomplete for a 3-parameter tool.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, baseline 3. The description adds 'as assignee choices' giving context to the output, but does not enhance parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 'List workspace members as assignee choices' clearly states the verb 'list', the resource 'workspace members', and the context 'as assignee choices', which distinguishes it from potential sibling tools like 'get_workspace'. However, it could be more specific about the scope and filtering.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives; no mention of prerequisites, required parameters (like Organization), or exclusions. The user is left to infer usage from context.

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