List Organization Members

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds valuable specifics: the return fields (user IDs, emails, roles, creation times), the exclusion of pending invitations, and the auth requirement of user credential plus org membership. It doesn't cover pagination or rate limits, keeping it below a 5.

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?

Well front-loaded with Purpose, Returns, Auth, and When to use sections. The markdown structure is clear, scannable, and every sentence contributes information with no redundancy.

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 single-parameter read-only list tool, the description covers purpose, return shape, auth requirements, and usage scenarios. Combined with annotations covering the safety profile and a fully documented schema, nothing an agent needs to invoke this correctly is missing.

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% and there is only one parameter, so the schema already documents 'organization' fully. The description adds no syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (accepted members of a RawTree organization), and explicitly scopes out pending invitations. This distinguishes it clearly from siblings like add-organization-member or remove-organization-member.

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 'When to use' section provides two concrete scenarios: needing a member user ID before role changes or removals, and inspecting organization membership. This routes the agent away from mutation siblings and toward the correct read tool.

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