list_memberships

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds value by explaining the dual filtering capability (by project_id or person_id) and the core behavior of listing memberships. No contradictions with annotations.

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 sentences that efficiently convey purpose and usage. No redundant phrases; every sentence adds value. The first sentence states what it does, the second explains when to use it.

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 has 4 optional parameters, an output schema, and annotations, the description covers the main use cases adequately. It does not detail pagination, but the output schema exists and the schema already documents limit/page. The description is complete for a list tool with good structured data.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description only rephrases the filter options (project_id and person_id) without adding new meaning or constraints beyond the schema. No additional detail on limit/page or parameter interactions.

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 'project memberships' in Productive.io, and distinguishes two specific use cases: seeing members of a project or projects of a person. This effectively differentiates it from sibling tools like list_projects or list_people.

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 explicitly guides when to use the tool: 'to see which people are members of a project, or which projects a person belongs to.' It does not mention when not to use or alternatives, but the two clear scenarios provide sufficient context for an agent to select this tool over others.

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