List group members

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds no additional behavioral context—no mention of pagination, return format, or any side effects. It does not contradict annotations, but it also does not enrich them.

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 extremely short—a single noun phrase. While concise, it is under-specified rather than efficiently informative. It does not follow a structure that front-loads key facts; it simply states a definition. The brevity is not a virtue here because it omits essential usage and behavioral details.

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 one-parameter read-only tool, the description minimally covers the resource and scope, but it omits any indication of what the returned data looks like (no output schema), potential error conditions (e.g., group not found), or authorization nuances beyond 'you belong to'. The agent may need to infer expectations from the tool name and sibling context, which is insufficient for confident invocation.

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 single parameter groupId is fully documented in the schema with description 'Canvas numeric id' (coverage 100%). The description adds no further meaning about the parameter's format, constraints, or relationship to the operation. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the full burden.

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 resource ('members') and includes a scope constraint ('of a group you belong to'), which distinguishes it from related tools like canvas_get_group. The verb 'list' is only in the title and not restated, but the noun phrase effectively communicates the operation. It is clear but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools such as canvas_get_my_groups.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like canvas_get_group or canvas_list_my_groups. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions. The agent is left to infer the purpose from the title and sibling names.

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