get-category-members

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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations: filters are applied server-side, there is a cap of 500 members, pagination uses an opaque cursor, and the member type is omitted for ordinary pages. Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, and the description complements these without contradiction.

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 three sentences long, each serving a distinct purpose: core function, filtering options, and pagination/behavioral note. It is front-loaded with the primary action and efficient in conveying all necessary information without redundancy.

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 no output schema, the description fully explains the return format (page ID, namespace ID, wiki page title) and the conditional omission of type for ordinary pages. It also covers filtering behavior, pagination, and limits. This provides sufficient completeness for the 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?

With 100% schema coverage, the description still adds value beyond the schema descriptions. It explains how filters work (server-side before cap), pagination mechanics (continueFrom), and the conditional omission of type. This enriches the meaning of each parameter and their interactions.

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 tool lists members of a category with specific return fields (page ID, namespace ID, wiki page title). It mentions optional filtering by type and namespace, pagination, and the omission of type for ordinary pages. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get-page or search-page, which serve different purposes.

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 clear usage context: it lists members, allows optional filters, and specifies pagination behavior. It does not explicitly compare with alternative tools, but the functionality is well-defined. The mention of filters applying server-side and the cap of 500 members gives practical guidance.

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