search_workspace_members

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses little: nothing about result limits, pagination, partial-match semantics, empty results, or permissions. It does hint that results carry UUIDs, which is the one useful piece of behavioral context.

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, the identifying scope (search by display name) front-loaded before the purpose. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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 two-parameter read-only lookup with no output schema and no annotations, the description is adequate but thin. It never says what a result record contains beyond UUIDs, or whether the search is paginated or capped.

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% and both parameters (query, workspace) are fully documented in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no syntax, format, or edge-case guidance beyond what the schema already supplies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource+key: 'Search for workspace members by display name', which no sibling tool (all pull-request operations) could be confused with. The scope of the search key (display name) is explicit in the first sentence.

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?

Adds a concrete downstream purpose ('finding reviewer UUIDs'), which implies when an agent would reach for it. It does not state when not to use it or name any alternative, but no sibling overlaps, 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.