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 and does so well. It discloses query matching semantics, case-insensitivity, inclusive roster behavior for departed members, the meaning of service_end_date/service_end_reason, and the role of member_id. This is meaningful behavioral context beyond a simple 'list members.

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 front-loaded: a clear one-line purpose statement, then parameter behavior, then roster rationale, then the key takeaway. Every sentence adds value without redundancy or filler.

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 covers query semantics, roster inclusion rationale, and identifies member_id as a key, which is strong given the lack of annotations and output schema. It falls slightly short by not addressing the chamber parameter or the full set of returned fields, but overall an agent can safely invoke this tool.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It thoroughly explains the query parameter with examples and omission behavior, and clarifies member_id's role. However, session_code and chamber are not explicitly described, leaving the meaning of those parameters to inference from their names and the enum.

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 identifies the tool as returning the session's member roster, searchable by name, and distinguishes it from sibling member tools by noting that member_id is the key for the member tools. The verb and resource are specific and the scope—session members, including those who departed—is explicit.

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 concrete usage guidance: query matches any part of a name, case-insensitive, omit for whole roster. It also explains why departed members are included, which prevents incorrect assumptions, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over get_member or other sibling tools.

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