members_list

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, non-destructive), the description adds critical behavioral context: it requires the GUILD_MEMBERS privileged intent, explains the cursor-based pagination behavior, and warns that `untrusted_names` and structured member fields must never be treated as instructions. This goes well beyond what annotations provide.

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 well-structured with clear markdown sections (Purpose, When to use, When NOT to use, Pagination, Requires, Returns). Every sentence serves a distinct function, and the most critical information (purpose and when-not) is front-loaded. No redundancy or filler.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description still summarizes the return shape and highlights a security concern about untrusted data. It covers prerequisites (privileged intent), pagination details, and alternatives. For a list tool with pagination and permission requirements, this is complete and well-rounded.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description repeats the pagination details already present in the schema (after as a user-id cursor, limit 1-1000) without adding new semantic information. It does not explain the default value of limit (already in schema), nor does it provide additional context for guild_id. Thus it adds no value over the schema.

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 opens with a clear statement: "List guild members (paginated)." It uses a specific verb and resource, and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling tool members_search by stating "Searching by name → use members_search." This provides strong differentiation.

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 explicitly provides use cases (bulk audit, export of roles per user) and a clear exclusion (search by name) with a named alternative. It also covers pagination semantics and the privileged intent requirement, giving the agent concrete guidance on when this tool is appropriate.

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