list_card_members

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'List members assigned to a card,' which implies a read operation but does not mention permissions, response format, or any side effects. For a tool with no annotation safety hints, this lacks necessary transparency about what happens when invoked.

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 a single, short sentence with no redundant information. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, making it easy to scan and process. There is zero waste.

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?

The tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema. The description states what it does, but it does not explain the return structure (e.g., array of member objects) or any edge cases (e.g., empty result, invalid card). For a minimal read tool, this is acceptable but leaves some ambiguity about the output.

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% for the single parameter card_id, and the schema already describes it as 'Card ID'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. Since the schema fully documents the parameter, the baseline of 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?

The description clearly states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('members assigned to a card'), making its purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_card_blockers or list_tags by naming the exact entity it returns, so an agent can select it without confusion.

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 is sufficient for a simple read-only listing tool. It does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives, but the resource is unique among siblings (members vs. other associations), so the intended usage is clear. No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned, which is acceptable for such a straightforward operation.

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