List workspace members

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

With readOnlyHint=true already indicating a safe read operation, the description adds valuable context: the required members:read permission, the semantic meaning of returned fields (including isYou and joined date), and the fact that the returned accountId is the input for other tools. This goes beyond what annotations alone would convey.

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 two succinct sentences with no filler. It front-loads the action and resource, then packs field details, authorization, and cross-references into a compact, readable structure.

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 single-parameter read-only list tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, output contents, required permissions, and related tools. There are no obvious gaps given the tool's simplicity.

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 input schema already fully describes the single 'workspace' parameter as an id and even references dropthis_workspaces. The description's mention of 'by its id' and using dropthis_workspaces to find the id is redundant with the schema. Since schema coverage is 100%, the description adds no meaningful new semantics for the parameter.

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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('List') and resource ('a team workspace's members by its id'), and enumerates the output fields. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by naming dropthis_workspaces, dropthis_update_member_role, and dropthis_remove_member, making its role in the workflow 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?

The description gives clear usage context: it requires a team-scoped credential (ADR-0068: members:read) and directs users to dropthis_workspaces to find the workspace id. It also explains how the returned accountId is consumed by related membership tools. It stops short of explicitly stating when not to use this tool, but the guidance is solid.

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