list_circle_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 clearly states an important privacy/security behavior: an identifier is NEVER returned, and each member only has has_telegram and has_whatsapp booleans. It also reveals auth setup behavior. It omits details like pagination or exact response shape, but the key behavioral constraints are explicitly surfaced.

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 compact and front-loaded: the primary purpose appears first, followed by the critical output constraint, then actionable access instructions. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no redundant or filler content.

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 there is no output schema, the description supplies a useful picture of the return shape by stating that each member carries only channel-presence booleans and never an identifier. It also covers the required auth context. It is slightly light on what an agent should do if it needs full member identifiers, but the description is adequate for 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?

The input schema covers 100% of the single parameter and describes it as 'Circle ID.' The description adds no additional semantic detail about the id beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage is appropriate.

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 and resource: 'List a Circle's members.' It adds meaningful scope by specifying that only channel-presence booleans are returned and that identifiers are never included. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling member-related tools, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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 access prerequisites: a Proof account, PROOF_API_KEY, server restart, and a follow-up call. It also explicitly warns that start_login does not open this tool, which prevents a likely misuse path. It does not compare against sibling tools for retrieving member details or channels, so alternatives are not explicitly named.

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