list_members

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only states the purpose and includes '[Official API]' but does not mention pagination behavior, return format, rate limits, or any safety implications. The term 'all members' could mislead since the schema includes page_size/page_token, implying paged results.

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 sentence, starting with the action, and is free of unnecessary words. The '[Official API]' prefix adds minimal value but does not harm clarity. It is slightly under-specified but still compact.

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?

While the schema covers parameters, there is no output schema and no annotations. The description does not explain what the response contains, how pagination works (despite the 'all' wording), or any operational context. For a simple list tool, this is a notable gap that could lead to incorrect expectations.

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%, with clear descriptions for chat_id, page_size, and page_token. The description adds no extra semantic meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 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 action ('List'), the resource ('members'), and the scope ('in a group chat'). It is concise and unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like manage_members or list_chats, so it stops short of a 5.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or scenarios where another tool (e.g., manage_members) would be more appropriate. The only implied usage is for retrieving group chat members, but no explicit direction is provided.

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