list_org_members

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

No annotations exist, so the description should fully disclose behavioral traits. It fails to mention that the operation is read-only, whether special permissions are needed, or if there are pagination constraints. The agent is left uninformed about side effects or 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 very short and front-loaded, with no wasted words. However, the redundant 'Params: `org_id`' line is unnecessary given the schema, which slightly detracts from conciseness.

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?

For a simple list tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately states the output (members and roles) but omits important context like whether results are paginated, the format of roles, or any sorting guarantees. This leaves the agent without enough information to fully expect the response.

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?

The schema already fully documents the single parameter (org_id) with a description. The description redundantly restates 'Params: `org_id`' without adding new meaning or usage details, so it neither harms nor significantly helps.

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) and the resources (members of an org, including their roles). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like add_org_member or remove_org_member.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs. alternatives such as list_orgs or other member management tools. The agent receives no context about prerequisites or use cases.

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