amulen_list_members

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description contributes the non-obvious scoping fact that only *active* members are returned, which the annotations do not convey. It says nothing about pagination, result ordering, or size limits for a potentially large project roster.

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?

Two short sentences with the core behavior front-loaded and no filler. The parenthetical "(user_ids)" is slightly awkward but does tie the output to the task-assignment parameter name, so it earns its space.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned (user id and role) and that results are limited to active members. It leaves the project_slug input format and any result-size behavior undocumented, which are the remaining pieces an agent needs to invoke it reliably.

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% for the single required parameter, project_slug, and the description never explains its format, where to obtain it, or whether it is a human-readable slug versus an id. The schema only supplies a type and title, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap on the one input that must be correct for the call to succeed.

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 names a specific verb and resource ("List active project members") and enumerates the returned fields (user id and role), which is enough for an agent to distinguish it from task, board, or project listing siblings. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with any named sibling, so it lands at a clear-but-undifferentiated 4.

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 second sentence gives a downstream use case ("Use the ids for task assignment (user_ids)"), which implies you call this before assigning tasks. It does not state when not to use it, whether it is the only way to obtain member ids, or any prerequisites, so the guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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