List organisation members

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds value beyond annotations by stating that any member may read the roster (an access-control trait) and by listing the returned fields (user id, email, name, role, join date) since there is no output schema. This complements the annotation-provided safety profile.

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 efficient sentences with zero filler. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose and output fields; the second adds access context and cross-references to sibling tools. Every sentence earns its place.

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 read-only list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it states the access rule, lists the output fields, and relates the returned user id to mutation tools. It does not mention pagination or result-size limits, which might matter for large organisations, but this is a minor omission given the tool's simplicity.

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 the schema description for the 'org' parameter is thorough (org id, slug, or name, defaults, and reference to list_orgs). The tool description does not need to add parameter details. While it doesn't repeat or augment param semantics, the schema already carries the full burden, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') with a clear resource ('an organisation's members') and enumerates the exact fields returned. It also distinguishes this tool from sibling mutation tools by noting the user id is what set_member_role and remove_member take, which differentiates it from related tools.

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 clear context: 'Any member may read the roster' indicates when the tool can be used (any member, read-only). It implicitly contrasts with mutation tools by naming them (set_member_role, remove_member), suggesting they are for changes. However, it does not explicitly state 'use X instead when modifying roles' or list exclusions, so it falls just short of a 5.

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