list_members

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explicitly discloses that the operation is read-only, that results are paginated, and that statuses include active, suspended, and pending invitations. It does not mention ordering or response metadata, but the core behavioral profile is transparent.

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?

One tight sentence that front-loads the core purpose, then adds read-only safety, filter options, and pagination. Every clause earns its place and there is no redundancy.

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 simple list tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what is listed, what fields are returned, filtering, pagination, and read-only safety. It could be more complete by describing response shape or ordering, but nothing critical is missing for basic invocation.

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 coverage is 50%: search and status have descriptions, while skip and limit are undocumented. The description adds a conceptual link between 'search string' and the search parameter and mentions pagination, but it does not explain skip/limit semantics in any operational detail beyond that.

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 specific verb ('List') with a clear resource ('the people in this workspace') and specifies what is returned ('role and status'). It also names the three statuses, making the tool's scope unambiguous and distinguishable from sibling tools like list_roles or list_forms.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: when you need the people in a workspace along with their roles and statuses. It states filtering and pagination options but does not explicitly name alternatives or exclude cases, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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