List Project Members

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds concrete behavioral detail about default membership scope (direct only) and how to include inherited members, which is valuable beyond annotations. No contradictions.

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 a single sentence with no redundancy. It immediately states the default behavior and how to change it, making it efficient and front-loaded.

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 tool with 7 parameters and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It fails to clarify that project_id is practically required, ignores pagination, and does not describe the return format. The agent lacks sufficient context to use the tool robustly.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description should explain all key parameters, but it only mentions include_inheritance. Other parameters like project_id, page, query, per_page, user_ids, skip_users are left undocumented, leaving the agent uninformed about how to use them.

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 clearly states the verb 'list' and the resource 'project members', and specifies the key differentiator between direct and inherited members via include_inheritance. This distinguishes it from sibling list tools like gitlab_list_issues or gitlab_list_projects.

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 explains when to set include_inheritance=true but provides no guidance on prerequisites (e.g., needing a project_id) or when not to use this tool versus alternatives. Context is implied but not explicit.

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