wafle_users_memberships_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 that it returns 'tenant's slug, name, role, and effective scopes' and clarifies 'current human', which is useful but not required given the annotations. No contradictions.

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 compact sentences. The first sentence states the primary function, and the second lists the return fields. Every word adds value, with no redundancy or 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?

This is a simple, zero-parameter read tool. The description fully covers what it does and what it returns. No output schema exists, but the return fields are enumerated, making the tool's behavior complete and understandable.

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?

There are zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so no parameter info is needed. Per rubric, 0 params gives a baseline of 4. The description reinforces that no input is required.

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 the specific action 'List', the resource 'memberships', and the scope 'current human's across all tenants'. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like wafle_users_me (current user details) and wafle_members_list (members of a specific tenant). The return fields are specified, adding clarity.

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: to view a user's memberships across tenants, including roles and scopes. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the scope is clear. This is strong context without exclusions, earning a 4.

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