list_project_members

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a useful behavioral detail: 'Internally resolves the project UUID from owner/alias before querying members.' However, it does not mention permissions, error behavior, or the absence of side effects. It adds some context but not comprehensive transparency.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the primary action, and contains no filler. Every sentence provides useful information: the purpose, search support, and resolution detail.

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 tool's moderate complexity (5 params, no output schema), the description covers the core purpose, search capability, and internal resolution behavior. It does not describe the return format or pagination details, but these are partially inferred from the schema. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to understand the tool's function.

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%, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining that owner and project are aliases and that the tool resolves them to a UUID internally. This gives the agent a better understanding of how the parameters are used, exceeding the baseline.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'List members (collaborators) of a project with their roles.' This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_user_projects (lists projects for a user) and get_user (gets a single user's info). The mention of search by username further clarifies its scope.

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 implies usage for retrieving project members but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no exclusions or comparisons to sibling tools like list_shared_projects or list_projects. The context is clear but no direct guidance is given.

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