get_channel_members

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, establishing safe read behavior. The description adds that it returns a list of users, which is useful but does not disclose additional traits like pagination behavior or rate limits. The description is adequate but not rich beyond annotations.

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?

Three sentences, no filler. The key action and purpose are front-loaded: 'Get members of a channel.' Every sentence adds value without repetition.

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 existence of an output schema (context signal), the description need not detail return values. It explains the primary function and use case. Minor gap: does not mention pagination explicitly, but the schema handles that. Overall, complete for a read operation with well-documented parameters.

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?

All three parameters have descriptions in the input schema (100% coverage), so the schema already explains them. The tool description does not add meaning beyond what the schema provides, earning the baseline score of 3.

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 'Get members of a channel' and explains the resource (members) and action (get). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'add_user_to_channel' by focusing on reading membership rather than modifying it.

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 a use case: 'Use to see who can receive messages in a channel.' This helps the agent understand when to invoke the tool. However, it does not explicitly exclude scenarios or mention alternatives among siblings.

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