getMemberships

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the safety profile, and the description does not contradict it. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond that, such as the pagination parameters (limit, offset) or the ability to omit metadata via nometa. It is neutral but uninformative, so a 3 is appropriate given the annotation coverage.

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 wasted words, so it is concise in length. However, it is so minimal that it fails to convey essential details, and the key information (such as the project requirement) is not front-loaded. It is concise but not effectively structured for utility.

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?

This tool has nested objects, multiple parameters with no descriptions, and no output schema. The description 'List memberships' does not cover any of the necessary context: no explanation of the return format, no mention of pagination or filtering, and no indication of the required projectId. It is grossly incomplete for an API of this 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning no parameter descriptions exist in the schema. The description itself does not explain any parameter (format, projectId, limit, nometa, offset). This leaves the agent with no understanding of how to set these values, making the tool effectively unusable without external knowledge.

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 a clear verb ('list') and resource ('memberships'), which distinguishes it from single-membership operations like getMembership. However, it lacks any qualifier such as 'for a project' even though projectId is required in the schema, so the scope is implicit rather than explicit.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that getMembership is for fetching a single record, nor does it explain the context of project-based listing. The sibling names hint at distinctions, but the description itself offers no explicit usage direction.

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