list_members

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the safety burden and does state 'Read-only.' It also discloses the non-admin visibility restriction in broadcast channels and notes that admins_only filtering still works there. It doesn't mention errors, pagination, or auth details, but this is solid coverage for a read-only listing tool.

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 front-loaded: the core function comes first, followed by a high-value edge case and a clear read-only safety note. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy.

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 simple 4-parameter read-only list tool, the description covers what it returns conceptually (members with roles), searchability, and the key broadcast-channel restriction. No output schema exists, but the description gives enough context for an agent to call it correctly; it could add explicit return-shape info, though that is not critical here.

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 the parameters are already well documented. The description adds marginal context by saying results are searchable and include roles, and it clarifies admins_only behavior in broadcast channels, but it does not meaningfully deepen per-parameter understanding.

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 identifies the resource (participants of a group or channel) and adds useful traits: searchable and with roles. However, it is phrased as a noun fragment rather than an explicit verb+resource statement, and it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like chat_info or list_chats.

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 implies when to use the tool — to get/search group or channel participants — and provides a meaningful broadcast-channel caveat about non-admin visibility. It does not name alternatives or explicitly state when not to use this tool in favor of a sibling.

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