list-organization-members

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the result set depends on the caller's permissions, which is important behavioral context. It does not mention other traits like whether it's read-only or if there are any side effects.

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 sentences, no fluff. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second adds important behavioral nuance. Perfectly concise for the information provided.

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?

No output schema is provided, so the description should explain the return structure. It describes permission-based differences but does not specify fields of the member objects, pagination, ordering, or error conditions. This leaves significant gaps for an agent.

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 schema describes organizationId as 'The identifier of the Organization.' The description adds meaning by explaining how the parameter is used to identify the organization and how results vary based on permissions, going beyond the schema's basic description.

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 clearly states it returns the list of members for a given organization identified by organizationId. It does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like list-product-members, but the context (organization vs product) makes it reasonably clear.

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 that results vary based on the caller's access level (admin vs non-admin), which provides context for when to use. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus alternatives like list-product-members or list-organizations.

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