list_members

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Liste') but doesn't mention whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires permissions, how results are returned (e.g., pagination, format), or any rate limits. This is a significant gap for a tool with potential complexity in member listing.

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, efficient sentence in French that directly states the tool's purpose. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, with no wasted words, though it could benefit from slight elaboration for better completeness.

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?

Given no annotations, no output schema, and a tool that likely returns structured member data, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what information is returned (e.g., member IDs, names, roles), how to handle large lists, or any behavioral nuances, leaving the agent under-informed for effective 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents both parameters (guildId and limit). The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying the tool operates on a server, which is already covered by the guildId parameter's description. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb ('Liste') and resource ('membres et leurs rôles d'un serveur'), making the purpose understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_user_info' or 'list_roles', but the focus on members with roles is specific enough for basic clarity.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_user_info' for individual members or 'list_roles' for roles alone. The description implies usage for listing members with roles, but lacks explicit context or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer based on tool names alone.

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