list_project_members

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It signals a read-only operation via 'List' and mentions the output fields, but it does not address permissions, pagination, or scoping. This is adequate but not rich.

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 short, front-loaded with the core purpose, and includes a useful usage example. The Args section is compact, though the 'project_id: The project id' line is somewhat redundant.

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 simple one-parameter list operation with an output schema available, the description covers the key intent and downstream usage. Extra details like permission requirements or pagination would be nice but are not essential for this endpoint.

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 schema has no description for project_id (0% coverage), and the description only restates 'The project id.' This adds little meaning beyond the parameter name and type, and does not explain how to obtain the value or any constraints.

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 states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('members of a project'), and enumerates the returned fields (id, user id, role). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like list_projects and list_project_tickets.

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 says to use it to find user ids to pass as assignee_user_id when creating or updating tickets. This gives clear decision-relevant context, though it does not state when not to use it or mention alternative tools.

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