get_project_members

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility. It discloses filter behavior (case-insensitive contains, exact match, AND combination), sorting (prefix '-' for descending), pagination envelope, and a platform-specific nuance (self-hosted returns all members in one page). This is rich behavioral disclosure beyond the schema and tool name.

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 well-structured: a one-line summary, then a concise list of filters and args, then return info. Every sentence provides value and no redundant filler. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and uses bullet-like formatting for readability.

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?

The description covers all essential aspects: purpose, filters, arguments, sorting, pagination, and return structure. Even though an output schema exists, the description provides additional detail about member fields and a pagination edge case. It is complete for a list tool with 9 parameters.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains every parameter: project_id as UUID, order_by as sort field with prefix rule, and all filter parameters with their matching behavior (contains vs exact). It also states how they combine (AND). This fully compensates for the missing 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 starts with 'List members of a project (filterable)', which is a specific verb + resource + scope. It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like get_workspace_members by explicitly referring to project members. The additional 'filterable' note adds useful purpose context.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool (when you need members of a specific project, optionally filtered). It provides details about filter semantics and sorting, but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. The context is clear, but it doesn't say 'use this instead of get_workspace_members for project-level queries'.

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