canvas_group_members

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context by disclosing permission scoping ('that you are allowed to see') and a hint about returned content ('with their names'), but says nothing about pagination behavior or result limits.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the purpose, scope, and return hint all appear immediately.

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-only list tool with fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose and permission scope adequately. A brief note on paginated/partial results would close the remaining gap.

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 all three parameters (group_id, page, raw) are already self-documenting, and the baseline of 3 applies. The description's 'one group' reinforces group_id semantics but adds no meaning for page or raw beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List the members of one group') and adds a scope qualifier ('that you are allowed to see'). It implicitly distinguishes itself from canvas_groups/canvas_group by operating on a single group's membership, but never names or contrasts those siblings explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent infers it is used when membership of a specific group is needed, and the schema note 'Group id, from canvas_groups' hints at the upstream call. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or named alternative.

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