list_workspace_members

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds two useful facts beyond annotations: the OAuth token requirement and the paginated ('one page at a time') behavior. It stops short of describing cursor/next-page semantics for the response.

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?

Four short sentences, each earning its place: action, add-alternative, exclusion, auth requirement. Front-loaded with the primary purpose and no filler.

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 read-only, no-output-schema list tool, the description covers purpose, alternatives, exclusion and auth. The only modest gap is how paging resolves (next page token / termination), which is not explained, but the essentials for correct invocation are present.

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 the single pageToken parameter is fully documented there as a 1-based page number with default. The description only restates pagination in prose ('one page at a time') without adding format or bounds beyond the schema, so 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List members of the current workspace') with pagination scope, and explicitly disambiguates from the sibling list_organization_users. An agent can select it correctly without opening the schema.

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?

Names the alternative for the org-wide case ('This tool does not list users inside an organization. Use list_organization_users for those') and routes to invite_workspace_member for the add operation. Explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance with named siblings.

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