List Workspace Members

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and destructiveHint, so the description adds value by specifying the required 'account' scope and pagination behavior (max_pages default and recommended limit). This goes beyond the annotations without contradiction.

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 concise and well-structured, with a brief overview, a sentence of additional context, and a clean Args/Returns block. Every sentence adds value, and the information is front-loaded.

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 the tool's simplicity (list operation, 3 parameters, output schema present), the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, usage, parameters, return type, and a key constraint (scope). No gaps are apparent.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description's Args section fully explains each parameter: workspace (optional, default), page_size (default 30), max_pages (default 1, max recommended 10). This compensates well for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 tool lists workspace members, with a specific verb and resource. It explicitly distinguishes from 'list_workspace_permissions' by noting that endpoint handles roles, and 'get_workspace_member' is a sibling for a single member. The 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 clear guidance on when not to use this tool (for permissions, use list_workspace_permissions) and mentions a prerequisite scope. It does not explicitly compare to get_workspace_member, but the context is sufficient for selecting the tool correctly.

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