List Project Memberships

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds only that it returns a 'Table of members with roles', which is minimal extra behavioral context. No contradictions with annotations.

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 and front-loaded with the purpose. The use-case sentence adds value. The Args block is slightly redundant with the schema but not wasteful. Overall it's efficient and well-ordered.

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 paginated list tool with full schema coverage and comprehensive annotations, the description covers the essentials: what it lists, why you'd use it, and the return type. No output schema exists, but the return description is sufficient. Nothing critical is missing.

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% – limit, offset, and project_id all have descriptions in the schema. The description's Args section repeats this information ('limit / offset: Pagination') without adding syntax, formats, or edge cases. Baseline 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states 'List members of a Redmine project with their roles' – a clear verb+resource. It adds a use case ('finding assignee IDs when you don't have admin access to /users.json') that differentiates it from the sibling redmine_list_users, though it doesn't name that sibling explicitly. The purpose is unambiguous and actionable.

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 gives a specific scenario ('when you don't have admin access to /users.json') that tells an agent when this tool is preferable over alternatives. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it, but the conditional framing provides adequate guidance for a simple read tool.

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