othos_project_members

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

The description implies read-only behavior but does not disclose permissions, pagination, rate limits, or response structure. Without annotations, the description should provide more context, such as whether the tool lists all members or returns minimal info.

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, front-loaded, with no unnecessary words. It is as concise as possible for the given purpose.

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?

Given the lack of output schema and annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not indicate what fields the returned members will have, or if there are any limits (e.g., pagination). For a simple list tool, more context would be helpful.

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 0%, and the description adds no meaning to the projectId parameter. While the parameter name is self-explanatory, the description does not explain that the projectId is used to filter the list, or mention any constraints.

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 'List members assigned to a project' clearly specifies verb and resource, and distinguishes from sibling tools like othos_project_assign_member and othos_project_unassign_member. However, it does not specify scope (e.g., all members or filtered) or output format, which would make it clearer.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like othos_project_get (which might also list members) or modifiers like assign/unassign. The agent must infer from sibling names, which is not explicit.

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