whodb_platform_org_members

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, so safety profile is covered. The description adds the workspace-override behavior (per-call targeting without changing defaults), which is useful context beyond annotations, but says nothing about pagination, output shape, or filtering.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then the targeting nuance. No waste, though slightly redundant with schema.

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 5-param read tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is adequate but thin: it omits what members are returned, pagination, and how team_id/resource_id interact with org member listing. Not misleading, but not complete.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description restates the workspace {host, org, project} targeting concept, adding nothing the schema doesn't already document in far more detail.

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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (members of the selected organization), clearly distinguishing it from whodb_platform_team_members and whodb_platform_org_resources. It doesn't explicitly name those siblings, but the resource is 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 description explains per-call targeting via workspace but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no condition selecting it over siblings like team_members, and no prerequisites. Usage is only implied.

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