get_group_members

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals important traits: NO_UNDO, pagination behavior with offset/limit, server-side response cap via 'apply_response_cap', and the exact structure of returned values. This goes beyond the schema, though it does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only (though '读取' implies it).

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 compact and uses bullets for clarity, but includes an extraneous tag 'add-geometry-export-and-measure' and cryptic terms like 'apply_response_cap' that are not explained. Despite this, it is relatively efficient and front-loaded.

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?

The description provides return structure and pagination details, which is helpful given no output schema. However, it omits key context such as accepted group_type values, the meaning of node_path/ctx, potential errors, and permissions. For a tool with 6 parameters and no output schema, this leaves gaps in usability.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains offset/limit (including default limit) and describes vertex/edge member formats, but fails to define ctx, node_path, group_type, and group_name, which are required parameters and not self-explanatory from the schema. Additionally, the description states offset/limit are '必填' (required), contradicting the schema which lists them as optional.

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's primary function: '分页读取 group 成员' (paged read group members). It specifies a distinct resource ('group members') and differentiates from sibling tool 'get_groups' which lists groups. The pagination aspect and member structure details further clarify 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 description implies usage when one needs to read group members with pagination, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. No exclusions or alternatives are provided beyond an implicit separation from 'get_groups'.

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