List organization members

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It merely says 'List members' without mentioning pagination behavior (evident from input schema params), rate limits, or what constitutes a 'member' (e.g., active vs. inactive). This lack of disclosure makes it insufficiently transparent.

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, concise sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately short for a simple list operation.

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?

Given the absence of an output schema and the presence of pagination parameters, the description should explain pagination behavior and the return format. It fails to do so, leaving the agent uncertain about how to iterate through results. This incompleteness lowers the score.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. The baseline is 3, and the description does not provide new insights into parameter usage, but the schema itself is clear.

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 action 'List members (users)' and specifies the resource 'of an organization', distinguishing it from sibling tools that list other resources like projects or activities.

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 no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The context from sibling tool names implies it lists members, but there is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing an organization ID) or alternatives. A score of 3 is appropriate for implied usage with no explicit exclusions.

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