List board members

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, covering safety and side-effect behavior. The description adds parameter details but no new behavioral context (e.g., error handling, output structure).

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 short, with a clear main sentence followed by parameter bullet points and an example. It is well-structured and front-loaded, though the parameter section largely duplicates 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?

With no output schema, the description fails to clarify the return format (e.g., list of member objects with names/IDs). The parameter details and example are helpful, but the tool's output remains ambiguous for an agent.

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 coverage is 100% and includes descriptions. The description repeats parameter details almost verbatim, adding only an example value for 'board' and clarifying the default for 'response_format'. No additional semantics beyond the schema.

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 'List board members for a board' clearly states the action and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'kanbanzone_get_board' (board details) and 'kanbanzone_list_boards' (all boards), though it does not explicitly differentiate among all list tools.

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 example 'Who can I assign cards to on this board?' provides context for when to use the tool, but there is no explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives. The description does not compare with other tools.

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