get_participants

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It mentions permission requirement but does not disclose error handling, rate limits, or side effects. Minimal behavioral insight beyond the read-only nature implied by 'list'.

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?

Extremely concise: one-line purpose followed by bullet-like parameters. No wasted words. Front-loaded with primary function.

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?

Covers core functionality and parameters. Output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. Lacks details on edge cases (e.g., invalid chat type) but is sufficient for typical use.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, description effectively explains each parameter: 'chat' as group/channel, 'limit' with max 500, 'search' for name/username filter, 'filter_by' with enum meanings. Adds value over schema titles.

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?

Description clearly states 'list group/channel members' (specific verb+resource). It distinguishes from sibling tools like add_participants, kick_participant, etc., which are mutation 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?

Mentions prerequisite permission ('requires permission to view members'), but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives like search_contacts or get_chat_info. Usage context is implied but not fully guided.

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