get_party_members

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it 'Get all members' but doesn't clarify if this is a read-only operation, what permissions are needed, how data is returned (e.g., pagination, format), or any rate limits. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior beyond the basic action.

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, clear sentence that efficiently conveys the core action without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and wastes no space, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

Given the tool has no annotations, no output schema, and low parameter schema coverage, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like safety, return format, or error handling, leaving the agent with inadequate information to use the tool effectively in a complex environment.

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 2 parameters with 0% description coverage, so the schema provides no semantic context. The description mentions 'a party' which implies the 'partyId' parameter, but doesn't explain what 'partyId' is or the purpose of 'sessionId'. It adds minimal value beyond the schema, failing to compensate for the low coverage.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'all members of a party with their character details', making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_party' or 'get_character', which might retrieve related but different data, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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, such as 'get_party' for party-level details or 'list_characters' for broader character listings. It lacks any context about prerequisites, exclusions, or typical scenarios for its application.

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