List workspace members

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond them by disclosing the fields returned and the conditional exposure of email addresses, effectively warning that contact data is withheld by default. It stops short of describing pagination or result-size behavior.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with what is returned and the workspace scoping, then the conditional email caveat. Every clause carries information; nothing is redundant.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the returned member fields and clarifies that a workspace_id is required implicitly. It lacks pagination/ordering or permission notes, but for a simple read-only listing with full schema coverage it is nearly complete.

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 both parameters, including the detailed redaction behavior of include_contact_details. The description only restates the email-address aspect of that flag without adding syntax, defaults, or scope beyond the schema; baseline 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?

States a specific resource (members - both users and user groups) scoped to 'one workspace', plus the fields returned (names, company, active status). It is clear what the tool retrieves, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like get_workspace or list_workspaces (the sibling set is mostly different resources, so ambiguity is low).

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 resource ('list members of a workspace'), and the description hints that email addresses only appear when include_contact_details is set, which is a conditional usage cue. There is no explicit when-to-use vs. alternative statement and no stated prerequisites (e.g. permissions needed to see contact details).

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