wafle_members_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is known. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: the auth requirement (owner/admin role) and the scope (includes pending invitations). This helps the agent understand the tool's behavior and prerequisites without contradicting the 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?

The description is two sentences, highly concise, and front-loaded with the core action. The first sentence states the function, and the second provides the essential role requirement. No redundant or extraneous information is included.

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 list tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, scope, and auth requirement. It could optionally mention pagination or return format, but these are minor gaps given the straightforward nature of the operation. Overall, it provides sufficient context for an agent to select and invoke the tool.

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% coverage for the tenant_slug parameter (with example 'gamerland'), so the schema already provides full parameter meaning. The description does not add any additional parameter-level details, such as format or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate given schema coverage.

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's function: 'List all members of a tenant' with explicit inclusion of 'accepted memberships + pending invitations.' This specific verb-resource pairing distinguishes it from siblings like wafle_users_memberships_list (current user's memberships) and wafle_invitations_create (creating invitations).

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 implies usage context by specifying a tenant and role requirement ('Requires `owner` or `admin` role'), but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. For example, wafle_users_memberships_list could be an alternative for the user's own memberships, but no such exclusion is stated. Usage guidance is present but not fully explicit.

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