list_memberships

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds critical context: caller must be admin (non-admins get 403), response includes email only for admins, and names/ids are still reachable via other tools. This goes beyond annotations without contradiction.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and each sentence adds value. While slightly long, it is well-structured with clear sections. Minor redundancy (e.g., re-explaining parameters) keeps it from a 5.

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 complexity (3 params, no output schema, but strong annotations), the description is thorough. It covers purpose, parameters, usage guidelines, behavioral details, and alternatives. Lack of explicit return format is acceptable since annotations and schema cover most needs.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying group_id is required with admin requirement, limit range 1-200 default 50, and offset defaults to 0. It explains behavior beyond schema, justifying a 4.

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 lists Loomio group members with email, roles, and join state. It specifies the required parameter group_id and differentiates from siblings like manage_memberships, list_polls, and get_user_activity, providing a specific verb+resource with sibling distinction.

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 states when to use (e.g., answer 'who's in group X', before calling manage_memberships) and when NOT to use (e.g., avoid constructing participation analysis; use get_user_activity instead). It provides clear context and alternatives, fulfilling the highest standard.

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