list_project_members

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It correctly indicates a non-destructive list operation, but does not disclose behaviors like pagination, sorting, error handling (e.g., invalid project), or permission requirements. The description is minimal but not misleading.

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 a single, well-formed sentence with no redundant words. It is front-loaded with the key action and resource. Every word is functional.

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 the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description sufficiently covers the primary function and expected output (members with roles). However, it omits edge-case details like behavior for missing project, pagination, or sorting, which could be useful for complex workflows.

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 input schema covers 100% of the single parameter (project_uuid) with a description. The tool description adds extra value by stating the output includes roles, which goes beyond the schema. This enriches the agent's understanding of what the tool returns.

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 members of a project with their roles' uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('members of a project'), and clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like list_workspaces or get_user_info by targeting project-specific memberships.

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 implies usage context (when needing project members), but provides no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance. For a straightforward list tool, the implied usage is acceptable, but lack of exclusions or prerequisites keeps it at a 3.

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