list_organization_members

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it's a list operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't mention pagination details (implied by page/perPage parameters), rate limits, authentication requirements, or what the output looks like. For a tool with pagination parameters, this is a significant gap in behavioral context.

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, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple list operation and front-loads the core purpose immediately.

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 list tool with pagination parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return format (e.g., list of user objects), pagination behavior, or error conditions. With no annotations and 100% schema coverage, the description should compensate by providing more context about how the tool behaves and what results to expect.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters (organizationId, page, perPage) with basic descriptions. The description doesn't add any additional semantic context about parameters beyond what's in the schema, such as format expectations for organizationId or typical values for page/perPage. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate but minimal parameter documentation.

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 'list user members in an organization' clearly states the verb ('list') and resource ('user members in an organization'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_organization_members' or 'get_organization_member_info', which could cause confusion about when to use this specific list tool versus search or get operations.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_organization_members' or 'get_organization_member_info'. It lacks context about use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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