list-project-members

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It implies a read operation but doesn't disclose critical details like pagination, sorting, rate limits, authentication requirements, or what data is returned (e.g., member roles, status). For a list tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.

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, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point with zero waste. It's appropriately sized for a simple list operation and front-loads the essential information without unnecessary elaboration.

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 list tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'members' entails (e.g., users, roles, permissions), return format, or behavioral constraints. While the schema covers the input well, the overall context for agent usage remains inadequate.

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%, so the schema already fully documents the single parameter 'project_id'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema (e.g., format examples, validation rules, or how it relates to the operation). Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 the verb ('List') and resource ('all members in a specific project'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list-workspace-members' by specifying project scope, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with other list tools like 'list-issues' or 'list-projects'.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing project access), exclusions, or compare it to similar tools like 'list-workspace-members' or 'get-project' which might provide overlapping information.

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