threads_list_members

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds valuable behavioral context: the GUILD_MEMBERS privileged intent requirement for with_member=true and the snowflake cursor semantics for after. This goes beyond the structured annotations without contradicting them.

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 compact and well-organized with clear headers (Purpose, When to use, Pagination, Returns). Every sentence carries distinct information—purpose, use cases, pagination caveat, and return shape—with zero 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?

For a tool with 4 parameters, clear annotations, and an output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, usage context, pagination nuance, privileged intent requirement, and return structure. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly without ambiguity.

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 descriptions already cover all parameters, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful extra context, particularly the note that Discord requires the GUILD_MEMBERS privileged intent when with_member=true, which is not in the schema. This elevates the score to 4.

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 'List members of a thread', a specific verb+resource combination that clearly states the action. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like threads_get_member (single member), threads_add_member, and threads_remove_member.

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?

Provides clear context with 'Audit who is in a private thread; build mention lists' and a dedicated 'When to use' section. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or point to alternatives like members_list or threads_get_member, so it falls short of a 5.

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