listProjectMembers

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about membership vs. workload, but it does not disclose behavioral details such as default pagination behavior, open-world semantics, or any access requirements.

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 concise sentences with no filler. The core purpose and output scope are front-loaded, followed by a focused usage note naming the alternative tool.

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 annotations covering safety, an output schema present, and the required projectId clearly identified, an agent has enough to invoke the tool correctly. The only notable omission is a description of limit/offset, but this is minor for standard pagination parameters and does not block correct use.

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 only 33%; only projectId has a schema description, while limit and offset are undocumented. The description reinforces that projectId identifies one project, but it does not explain limit/offset pagination semantics, leaving a real gap for those parameters.

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 names a specific verb and resource: it 'discovers' the users/groups of a project and reports their IDs and roles. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from getUserWorkload, which analyzes a user's issues rather than project membership, so an agent can tell them apart immediately.

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?

It states when to use the tool: 'Use when choosing or interpreting assignees.' It also names the closest alternative, getUserWorkload, and explains why that tool is not the right choice for membership questions. This gives clear routing guidance.

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