list_members

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

The annotations already declare readOnly and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by disclosing the requirement for intents and the pagination mechanism, which are not captured in 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?

The description is two short, focused sentences with no redundant information. It is concise and well-structured.

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?

The description is adequate for a simple read-only listing tool, covering the intent caveat and pagination. However, it omits details about the output format and error conditions, which would be helpful for full self-sufficiency.

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 description only partially explains the 'after' parameter via the pagination hint. The 'limit' parameter's role and the 'guild_id' requirement are not described, leaving the agent to infer their semantics from the schema alone.

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 the verb 'List' and the resource 'server members' clearly, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does. It is specific enough to distinguish from siblings like list_guilds or list_roles.

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 mentions 'subject to required intents' and gives a pagination hint, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as get_member or list_roles. The guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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