list_organization_members

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states the basic operation (listing members) and the role filter. It fails to mention pagination, rate limits, ordering, or any side effects. The description is essentially a tautology of the tool name.

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 extremely concise—two short sentences. It is front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word serves a purpose. No redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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?

Despite having an output schema and only two parameters, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the behavior when role is omitted (default behavior), nor does it address pagination or sorting. The org parameter is left unexplained. The tool's complexity is low, but the description fails to cover essential usage context.

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%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning to the role parameter by listing its possible values ('all | admin | member'), but it does not describe the org parameter at all. The default value for role is not mentioned. Partial compensation earns a 3.

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 tool's purpose: 'List members of an organization.' The verb 'list' and resource 'members of an organization' are specific. However, it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like list_repo_collaborators or list_team_members, though those are different resources, so some differentiation is inherent.

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 provides minimal usage hints by listing the role filter options ('all | admin | member'), implying when to use the role parameter. However, it offers no guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The agent receives little help in deciding between this and sibling tools.

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