list_space_members

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safe-read nature is covered. The description adds only that groups are included, which is more of a scope detail than a behavioral trait. It does not disclose pagination, permission requirements, or return shape, but the annotations lower the burden.

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?

A single, direct sentence that front-loads the core action and resource. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundancy or filler.

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 read-only list tool with complete schema parameter documentation and safety annotations, the description is mostly sufficient. It could mention pagination or the return format, but the schema already covers cursor and limit, and the annotations cover behavioral safety. The scope of 'members and groups' is clearly stated.

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%, with limit, cursor, and space_id all documented. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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') and a clear resource ('members and groups in a space'). It is immediately distinguishable from sibling tools like add_space_members, remove_space_member, and update_space_member_role, and the phrase 'in a space' separates it from list_workspace_members.

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 when to use the tool: whenever you need the members and groups of a specific space. It gives clear context but does not explicitly mention alternatives or state when not to use it, such as pointing to list_workspace_members for workspace-level membership.

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