list_members

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Lister' implies a read-only operation, but the description doesn't disclose pagination, default limits, whether all statuses are included, or any side effects. It adds no behavioral context beyond the verb itself.

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 extremely short (4 words in French), which is concise but under-specified. It omits essential usage and parameter information, so the brevity is not a virtue.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain return values, pagination, or the meaning of sqlfilters. The low complexity of a list operation doesn't excuse the lack of context.

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 coverage is only 33% (status has a description; limit and sqlfilters do not). The tool description adds no parameter explanations. Since coverage is low, the description should compensate but instead offers zero parameter semantics.

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 'Lister les membres/adhérents' clearly states a list operation on member resources. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_member, create_member, subscribe_member, and list_member_types by describing a plural listing action. However, it doesn't include any scope or filtering nuance, so it's clear but not enriched.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of filters, default behavior, or when to use list_member_types or get_member instead. This is a complete absence of usage guidance.

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