Quem participa de um projeto

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds useful behavioral context, such as including usernames in the output and revealing that the assignment API rejects non-members, which helps the agent understand why listing members is important. However, it does not detail pagination or ordering, so it stops short of a 5.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The key content is front-loaded (what the tool returns), followed by a concise usage guideline. Every word earns its place.

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 list tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: what is returned (members with usernames), when to use it, and a consequence of misuse. Combined with annotations, this is complete for its complexity.

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 schema covers 100% of parameters with a rich description for 'project' (accepts name or ID, examples like 'Vendas', 'the city'). The description adds no additional parameter information, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate per the rubric.

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 'Os membros do projeto, com o nome de usuário' clearly identifies the tool as returning project members with usernames. It effectively distinguishes this tool from siblings like projects_list (projects) and tasks_search (tasks), and the title 'Quem participa de um projeto' reinforces the purpose.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use antes de atribuir uma demanda quando não souber quem participa' (use before assigning a task when you don't know who participates). It also mentions the consequence of not doing so — 'atribuir a quem não participa é recusado pela API' — which provides strong practical guidance.

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