list_group_members

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, which cover the safety profile and scope. The description adds the specific table name, which is useful context. It does not disclose details about pagination, whether members include both users and subgroups, or any other behavioral traits, but given the read-only annotation, the description provides adequate baseline transparency.

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 a single concise sentence that states the action and the backing table with no extraneous words. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and is efficiently 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?

For a simple read-only list operation with no output schema and full parameter documentation, the description is minimally adequate. It does not mention response format, pagination behavior, or the possibility of nested members, but the low complexity and presence of annotations mean these gaps are not critical. However, a note about what constitutes a 'member' (users vs. subgroups) would improve completeness.

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 fully describes both parameters: 'group' (Group sys_id or name) and 'limit' (Max records, default 100). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 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 'List' and the resource 'members of a group', and identifies the backing table (sys_user_grmember). It is unambiguous about what the tool returns. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like list_groups (which lists groups rather than members), but the purpose is clear enough for an agent to infer the distinction.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that list_groups lists all groups, or that get_group retrieves a single group, nor does it address use cases such as checking membership before modifying a group. The description leaves the agent to infer when to invoke this tool based on its name and parameters.

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