twitter_community_members

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

The description goes beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by detailing the reduced user object (no bio, follower counts, created_at), the interleaving of admins/moderators at arbitrary positions, and the pagination behavior (bare next_cursor, no total count, stop when members is empty or has_more is false). This provides critical behavioral context that annotations alone do not convey.

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 dense but well-structured, front-loading the core purpose and then providing necessary caveats and usage notes. Every sentence adds value, covering the row structure, reduced user object, role semantics, pagination behavior, and alternatives. It is appropriately sized for the complexity of the tool.

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's complexity (pagination, reduced user object, role semantics, interleaving), the description is complete. It covers the return structure, pagination termination conditions, and when to use alternative tools. The absence of an output schema is compensated by the detailed description of the row structure and user object fields.

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 schema already has 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for all three parameters, including defaults, clamping, and the meaning of cursor absence. The description adds value by explaining the pagination semantics (next_cursor, end-of-list signal) and the reduced user object, but the schema already covers the parameter basics well, so the description's additional contribution is moderate.

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 the member roster of an X Community with cursor pagination, and specifies the exact row structure (user, role) and the reduced user object fields. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like twitter_community_moderators and twitter_user_info by explicitly noting what it does not provide and what to use instead.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives: it notes that the role on a member row is not caller-relative and is returned in full, unlike the community object's role field, and explicitly warns against deriving a moderator list by filtering the first page, directing to twitter_community_moderators instead. It also explains when to use twitter_user_info for full profiles.

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