List members of a project or portfolio

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination behavior, or what 'access level' values look like. For a list operation, this is insufficient.

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—a single, front-loaded phrase that directly answers the core question. Every word earns its place, with no fluff or repetition of the title.

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 an output schema and the tool's simple interface, the description should clarify the return format (e.g., list of members, fields included) and any pagination or default behavior. It does not, leaving the agent with an incomplete mental model of the tool's output.

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 100% with the parameter parent_gid already fully documented in the input schema (including hint to use asana_find). The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Who currently has access, and at what level' combined with the title 'List members of a project or portfolio' clearly identifies the tool's purpose: retrieving members and their access levels. This differentiates it from sibling tools like member_add (which adds members) and asana_whoami (which shows the current user).

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like member_add or asana_whoami. It does not mention contexts where another tool would be more appropriate, nor does it provide any exclusion criteria or prerequisites.

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