akb_vault_members

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It explicitly states it is a read-only listing operation with roles, which is transparent. It does not disclose permissions or pagination, but for a simple list tool, this is sufficient.

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?

Single sentence, no redundant words, front-loaded with action and resource. Highly 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (single parameter, no output schema, straightforward purpose), the description fully covers necessary context. Sibling tools provide alternatives but do not require additional detail 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 coverage is 100% (vault parameter described as 'Vault name'). Description adds no new semantics beyond restating that it lists members for a vault. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states the action 'list' and the resource 'members of a vault', specifying the roles (owner, admin, writer, reader). This directly distinguishes it from sibling tools like akb_list_vaults (lists vaults) and akb_vault_info (vault metadata).

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?

Usage is implied (when you need to list members of a vault), but no explicit guidance on when not to use or alternatives. For example, adding members would require akb_grant, and listing vaults would use akb_list_vaults, but these are not mentioned.

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