skool_list_members

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

The description discloses the read-only nature of the operation, which is a key behavioral trait. Beyond that, it does not mention pagination, how the limit parameter affects results, authentication requirements, or potential errors. With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden but only partially covers the behavioral aspects.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and returned fields, followed by a useful cross-reference to skool_start_chat. Every word contributes value, with no redundancy or filler. The structure is clean and immediately scannable.

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 tool with only one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the main purpose, explicitly states the return fields, and offers a practical follow-up action. It is missing an explanation of the limit parameter's behavior and default, but overall it provides enough context for an agent to understand the tool's role and basic use.

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 single parameter 'limit' is not mentioned in the description at all, and schema description coverage is 0%. The agent receives no guidance on how limit influences the number of members returned or whether there is a default. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation, leaving the parameter's meaning entirely up to inference from its name and default.

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 action ('List members of your community') and the resource, along with the specific fields returned (id, name, email, short bio). The 'read-only' qualifier distinguishes it from mutation tools, and the resource 'members' differentiates it from sibling list tools like skool_list_posts or skool_list_courses.

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 one concrete usage context: obtaining member ids for use with skool_start_chat to open a DM. However, it does not explicitly compare with alternative list tools or state when not to use this tool. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are given, leaving some ambiguity for an agent deciding between list tools.

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