list_members

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

There are no annotations, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It states the tool returns all available members, implying a read-only operation with no side effects. Yet it does not mention response shape, pagination, or any access constraints, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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 two concise sentences that are front-loaded—the first sentence states the core action, the second gives an explicit use case. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, this description covers the core functionality and a known use case. It could expand on the return format, but the simplicity of the tool makes this adequate.

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 input schema is empty (zero parameters) with 100% schema coverage. The description adds nothing about parameters, but since none exist, it is sufficient. Baseline score of 4 for zero parameters is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool 'Returns all available members in the system,' which is a specific action and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_member_profile and get_recommendations by focusing on the full member list rather than individual profiles or recommendations. The added note about discovering valid member IDs reinforces the tool's purpose.

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 'Use this to discover valid member IDs' gives a clear context for when to call this tool. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or state when not to use it, such as 'if you need a single member's details, use get_member_profile instead.'

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