get_family_members

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety and repeatability are covered structurally. The description adds the useful scoping fact that results are the assignable members with profile details, but says nothing about ordering, completeness, or failure modes (e.g., no family configured).

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 one-line purpose is front-loaded and the bulleted example questions are scannable rather than padded. Slightly tighter would be merging the assignment clarification into the first sentence instead of a separate line.

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?

With no output schema, the description is the only source of return-shape information, and "profile details" is vague — an agent cannot know whether it gets names, IDs, avatars, roles, or colors back. That omission matters here because get_avatars and get_colors are siblings that likely supply overlapping attributes.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and it correctly presents the call as parameterless.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ("Get family members/profiles from Skylight") and clarifies the payload is people who can be assigned chores plus profile details. It doesn't distinguish itself from adjacent read tools like get_avatars or get_colors, which an agent could plausibly confuse with profile data.

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?

Three concrete example questions ("Who's in our family on Skylight?", "Who can I assign chores to?") make the intended trigger situations unambiguous. There is no explicit when-not-to-use or named alternative, so it stops short of a 5.

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