get_community_moderators

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only restates the purpose without mentioning pagination, authentication requirements, return format, or any side effects. This leaves the agent without knowledge of cursor-based pagination or response structure.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the action and key identifier with no wasted words. It is as concise as possible while conveying the core purpose.

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 simple read tool with only two parameters (one required) and no output schema, the description covers the essential selection and invocation information. However, the cursor parameter is not described, and pagination behavior is omitted, leaving some gaps. Still, it is adequate for a basic getter.

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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the schema descriptions are merely examples (e.g., 'Example value: 1601841656147345410') and do not explain semantics. The description mentions communityId but says nothing about the cursor parameter, which is likely for pagination. The agent gets no added meaning beyond the parameter names.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('Community Moderators') with the key identifier ('by Community ID'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_community_members and get_community_details. It unambiguously states what the tool does.

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 phrase 'by Community ID' implies the tool is for retrieving moderators for a specific community, providing clear context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives such as get_community_members, which could be confused for this purpose.

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