list_group_members

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes that this is a safe read operation. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that: the API returns only id and type, ignores a fields parameter, and cannot return names. This helps the agent set expectations about the response without needing to call the tool.

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 three sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose, then provides the most important limitation and the routing guidance to get_group. Every sentence earns its place and the structure makes the key facts easy to scan.

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?

With six parameters fully covered by the schema, a readOnly annotation, and no output schema, the description covers the critical non-obvious behavior: fields are ignored and names cannot be requested. It also gives an alternative for the common named-members use case. This is sufficient for a read-only list endpoint, though it does not describe envelope or error details.

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 six parameters. The description does not add per-parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, though it does clarify a general API limitation around requesting fields. This meets the baseline without exceeding it.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List the members of a group.' It further clarifies the exact output shape (id and type per member) and explicitly contrasts itself with get_group, which resolves member names. This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinguishable from nearby member-related tools.

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 explicitly states when to prefer an alternative: 'Use get_group when the user needs members named rather than listed as bare ids.' It also explains why list_group_members cannot fulfill that need, giving the agent a clear decision rule for selecting between the two tools.

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