workiva_list_workspace_memberships

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 only says "List memberships" with no disclosure of read-only behavior, pagination, return format, authorization requirements, or what exactly constitutes a membership. The verb "List" implies read-only, but this is not explicit, and there is no additional context.

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 concise and front-loaded with the purpose. The Args section is clearly formatted and provides the necessary parameter semantics without redundancy or wasted words. Every sentence earns its place.

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, the description plus schema is mostly complete. Given there is an output schema, return values need not be described in prose. However, it lacks any note about behavior that might vary (e.g., whether memberships include nested group memberships or are limited to direct members), and it does not mention pagination. This leaves a small gap in completeness.

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 0%, but the description explains both parameters: workspace_id as "Workspace ID" and group_id as "Group ID (optional — limits to a group's memberships)." This adds meaning beyond the bare schema, clarifying the optional grouping filter and the required workspace context.

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 states a specific verb+resource: "List memberships in a workspace or workspace group." This clearly differentiates from sibling tools like workiva_list_workspace_groups (which lists groups) and workiva_list_organization_users (which lists users). The scope is explicit.

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?

Usage is implied by the purpose and parameter descriptions: to get memberships, call this tool with the required workspace_id and optionally filter by group_id. However, there is no explicit "when to use vs alternatives" or mention of scenarios where this tool is not appropriate, so it does not fully guide selection among siblings.

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