member_workspaces

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 does add genuine behavioral context that visibility settings and role permissions constrain results, but it never states that this is a read-only operation, nor anything about authorization requirements or pagination/result size.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the usage trigger and followed by the one caveat that matters. No filler and nothing redundant with the schema.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should hint at what comes back; it only indirectly implies workspace objects via the visibility/permission note and leaves the response shape to the schema's field list. For a simple read with complete parameter docs this is adequate but thin.

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 explains memberId, fields, filter, and paidAccount. The description only echoes the memberId forms (id, username, me) and adds nothing about filter semantics or field selection; 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?

Names the resource (Trello workspaces) and the scoping relationship (associated with a known member, by id/username/me), which lets an agent distinguish it from list_workspaces and workspace_members. It is framed as a 'use when' clause rather than a direct verb+resource statement, but the intent is unambiguous.

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?

Explicitly states the triggering condition: a known member whose workspaces you need. It does not name alternatives (list_workspaces for an unfiltered list, member_get for member attributes) or say when not to use it, which keeps it below a 5.

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