List membership requests

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

Beyond the annotations, the description adds important behavioral details: only admins and moderators can see requests, unauthorized access returns APP_PERMISSION_DENIED, results are paginated 30 per page and ordered oldest first within the page, and applicant answers are included. These details materially help the agent understand permissions, failure behavior, and result shape.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and includes useful operational details without excessive length. There is minor redundancy around 'Admins and moderators only' and 'Only admins and moderators see requests', but the structure remains efficient.

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 read-only listing tool with no output schema, the description explains the returned data, pagination behavior, permission requirements, failure behavior, and the follow-up action for request IDs. An agent has enough information to call the tool correctly and interpret the results.

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 description coverage is 100%, so group, limit, and cursor are already documented in the schema. The description adds useful pagination context with '30 to a page' and 'oldest first', but it does not add parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 states a specific verb and resource: pending requests to join a private group, including applicants' Membership Questions answers. It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like list_members, approve_membership_request, and decline_membership_request by focusing on pending join requests and admin/mod visibility.

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?

It gives clear usage context: admins and moderators should use it, other accounts receive APP_PERMISSION_DENIED, and returned request_id values are meant for approve_membership_request or decline_membership_request. It does not explicitly contrast with every alternative listing tool, but the intended workflow is clear.

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