Base Wework List All Members

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the transparency burden. It discloses that the tool returns all workspace members and their associated roles/projectsanding, which is helpful. However, it does not mention authentication requirements, pagination/volume risks, or whether any filters or side conditions apply.

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 the core behavior and followed by a practical use-case statement. No wasted words and easy to parse.

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?

The tool is a simple list operation with one optional parameter and an output schema, so the description covers the essential scope and content. However, it omits any mention of access_token, pagination, or limitations, leaving mild ambiguity for agent invocation.

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 0%, and the description does not compensate by explaining the access_token parameter or its optionality. The parameter name is self-explanatory, but the description adds no semantic help beyond the schema's basic label.

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 all members') and specifies scope ('entire WeCom workspace') plus the included fields (username, role, projects). It does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling member-list tools like base_account_search_user or base_account_get_all_users, but the core purpose 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?

The description provides a concrete use case: lookup of member/developer names before creating and assigning tasks. It does not mention alternatives or cases where another tool should be used, but it gives clear situational context.

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