List Organization Members

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

Annotations cover key behavioral traits (read-only, open-world, idempotent, non-destructive), so the description doesn't need to repeat these. It adds value by specifying that roles are included in the output, which isn't in the annotations. However, it lacks details on output format, pagination, or error handling, limiting its 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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('List all members') and includes key detail ('with their roles') without waste. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 low complexity (one parameter, no output schema) and rich annotations, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks context on output structure or error cases, which could help the agent use it more effectively despite the annotations.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with 'organization_id' documented as 'Resource ID'. The description doesn't add meaning beyond this, such as format examples or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, as the description provides no extra parameter insights.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('all members of an organization with their roles'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'dual_get_organization' or 'dual_list_organizations', which might also provide member information indirectly, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, such as needing an organization ID, or compare it to siblings like 'dual_get_organization' for member details or 'dual_remove_org_member' for related actions, leaving the agent without usage context.

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