List the resolved effective members of a fleet

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

Annotations already establish that this is read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing that results combine static and tag-matched hosts and that each host carries the caller's permission level. It does not contradict annotations.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The core action and the meaning of 'effective members' are front-loaded, and every clause contributes useful information about what the tool returns.

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?

For a simple, read-only, single-parameter tool, the description is nearly complete: it defines what is returned, how membership is computed, and what extra per-host data is included. Without an output schema, a bit more detail about the returned format could help, but this does not block correct invocation.

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?

There is one required parameter, 'id', with no schema description (0% coverage). The description only implies via 'of a fleet' that the id identifies the fleet, but it never explicitly states that the parameter is the target fleet ID. Some meaning is added, but the description does not fully compensate for the missing schema-level parameter documentation.

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 a specific verb ('List') and a precise resource ('resolved effective members of a fleet'), and explains the composition as the union of static hosts and tag-rule matches. This clearly differentiates it from related fleet tools like listing current user fleets or reading an inventory snapshot.

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 makes the intended use case clear: when you need the complete, effective membership of a fleet rather than static members or a snapshot. It does not explicitly name alternatives or give exclusion criteria, but the context is strong enough for an agent to select this tool appropriately.

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