weflow_get_group_members

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

No annotations are available, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not explicitly state the operation is read-only, nor does it explain the effect of forceRefresh (e.g., cache bypass and latency implications). It also omits return format and pagination behavior, leaving important behavioral traits undisclosed.

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 with no filler, front-loading the action 'List' and the object. It is appropriately concise, though it could be expanded with essential details without harming conciseness.

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?

With four parameters (including the unexplained forceRefresh and withCounts), no output schema, and no annotations, the tool requires more context than provided. The description fails to cover critical aspects like response structure, forceRefresh behavior, and when to choose this over other listing tools, leaving the agent under-informed.

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 only 25% (only chatroomId is described). The description's phrase 'optionally including message counts' hints at includeMessageCounts/withCounts, but it does not explain forceRefresh or the confusing relationship between withCounts and includeMessageCounts, both of which share the same $ref. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema for these parameters.

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 uses the specific verb 'List' with a clear resource ('members of a WeChat group from WeFlow'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like weflow_list_contacts and weflow_get_messages. The optional 'including message counts' adds precise functional detail.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No exclusions or 'use this when' hints are given, and the sibling tools like weflow_list_contacts or weflow_list_sessions could overlap in unclear ways. The lack of contextual scenarios makes it insufficient.

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