nworks_directory_members

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden and successfully discloses the authentication mechanism (Service Account) and setup dependency (nworks_setup). However, it lacks disclosure of pagination behavior, rate limits, or whether the returned list is complete or filtered by permissions.

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 efficiently structured across four sentences covering purpose, usage examples, authentication requirements, and integration with messaging workflows. No redundancy or filler text; every clause adds specific operational context.

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 absence of an output schema, the description partially compensates by highlighting that userId is retrievable here for messaging purposes. However, it omits details about other returned fields (names, departments, emails) or list pagination that would help the agent handle the response.

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 contains 0 parameters, which per guidelines establishes a baseline of 4. The description does not need to compensate for missing parameter documentation, and implicitly confirms no filtering parameters are available by describing this as a general member listing tool.

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 explicitly states the tool queries NAVER WORKS organization members (직원) using the specific verb '조회합니다' (queries/lists). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like nworks_message_members and nworks_login_user by specifying this retrieves the full organizational directory (구성원 목록) rather than chat participants or current user info.

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?

Provides explicit usage examples ('구성원 목록 보여줘', 'userId 찾기') and clearly states the prerequisite workflow: Service Account authentication requires nworks_setup first. It also clarifies the relationship to nworks_message_send by noting this tool provides the recipient userId needed for messaging.

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