List Project Members

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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the description adds value by disclosing the response shape ({ items, pagination }) and pagination fields (count, current_page, has_next) plus the default page_size of 30. This goes beyond the annotations and gives the agent a clearer picture of the tool's behavior.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and includes essential behavioral details (response shape, pagination, default page_size) without unnecessary fluff. Every sentence contributes value.

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 no output schema, the description explains the response envelope and pagination. The schema covers parameter details, and the verbosity parameter description clarifies field levels. It lacks explicit error or edge-case handling, but given the low complexity and read-only nature, it is sufficiently complete.

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% with detailed parameter descriptions (page, project, page_size, verbosity). The description only says 'optionally filtered by the given query parameters' and mentions default page_size, which is already in the schema. Thus it adds no significant semantic value beyond the schema.

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 memberships' with a clear verb and resource, and the title 'List Project Members' reinforces this. It is clearly distinguished from sibling tools like membership_get, membership_create, etc., by the verb 'list' and the project-membership domain.

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 no explicit 'when to use' or alternative guidance. It implies use for listing project memberships, but does not mention using membership_get for a single member or caution against using it for mutation. The 'optionally filtered' phrase hints at list scenarios but doesn't provide exclusions or alternatives.

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