list_project_members

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states 'list' without disclosing if this is a read-only, safe, or any potential side effects. It does not mention authentication needs or that the project must be active.

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 sentence that efficiently communicates the action and a usage hint. It is front-loaded with the core function. Minor improvement would be separating the hint for clarity.

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 no parameters and an output schema, the description is adequate but misses a key context: the 'current project' must be set via a separate tool. This prerequisite is not mentioned, which could lead to confusion.

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?

There are zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 4. The description adds value by explaining the purpose of the returned IDs, exceeding the baseline.

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 verb 'list' and resource 'active members of the current project', making the purpose specific and unambiguous. No sibling tool has a similar purpose, so differentiation is inherent.

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 downstream usage hint (use ids for assigning notes or references) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites like setting the current project.

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