list_group_members

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

Annotations already declare the read-only, idempotent, non-destructive profile. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: the permission requirements for calling it, the pagination envelope, and the limit range. It stops short of describing performance or error behavior, but the annotations carry the safety burden.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then cleanly partitioned into Args and Returns. Every line carries signal, though the Returns section partially restates what the output schema already provides.

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 an output schema exists, the description needn't explain returns, yet it still summarizes the data/pagination shape. Combined with permissions, param docs, and sibling routing, an agent has everything needed to invoke this correctly.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by documenting all three parameters: group_id (and how to find it via list_groups), limit (range 1-500, default 100), and offset (pagination semantics, default 0). No parameter is left undocumented.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'List the users in a group.' This immediately distinguishes it from list_groups (lists the groups themselves) and list_circle_members (a different membership domain). An agent can tell what it returns without opening the schema.

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 the authorization context ('Admins, sub-admins of the group and the group's own members may do this') and routes the agent to list_groups to obtain group_id, then to get_user for member details. It does not compare against list_circle_members or other membership listings, so no explicit when-not guidance.

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