x_api_get_lists_members

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It transparently states the tool is read-only, lists required permissions/scopes, explains environment-selection behavior for tenant/account identity, and documents common failure conditions and safety warnings, going far beyond minimal expectations.

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 long but meticulously structured with labeled sections (Use when, Risk, Required permissions, etc.). Every sentence provides distinct value—no filler—and the example at the end is practical. The structure makes it easy to scan and reference.

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?

Despite having no output schema or annotations, the description covers expected response shape, common failure conditions, prerequisites, safety warnings, and even an invocation example. For a tool with 9 parameters, this is remarkably complete and leaves little ambiguity for an agent.

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 input schema has 9 parameters with 0% coverage, but the description adds meaning by specifying parameter formats and constraints for id, max_results, and pagination_token, and explains the roles of scopeTenantId, scopeUserId, scopeAccountId, and credentialKey. It does not describe all parameters, but the critical ones are covered.

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 states 'Get List members' which is a clear verb+resource pair, and the tool name further reinforces its function. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like x_api_get_lists_followers beyond the word 'members' versus 'followers', so it stops short of full distinction.

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 explicit 'Do not use when' guidance and names alternative tools (x_schema_discovery, x_query_suggestion) for exploration, plus recommended prerequisite and follow-up tools. However, the 'Use when' section simply repeats 'Get List members' without adding contextual use cases or exclusions beyond the when-not section.

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