get_group_members

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral traits. It discloses recursive expansion but omits details like pagination, rate limits, authentication, or output structure (e.g., what 'user details' include). Essential behavioral context is lacking.

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?

Two sentences, no extraneous information. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second adds the key special feature (recursive expansion). Excellent conciseness.

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?

The description covers the basic function and a key feature, but lacks explanation of the return value (output structure). Since there is no output schema, the description should clarify what 'user details' means. Some aspects (like max_results behavior) are left to the schema. Overall adequate but with gaps.

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%, so the schema fully describes all four parameters. The description adds no new meaning beyond what's in the schema (e.g., 'recursive' is already documented). With high coverage, baseline 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 tool lists group members with user details and supports recursive expansion for on-prem AD. It distinguishes from siblings like get_group (group properties) and get_user_groups (user's groups) by focusing on member listing.

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 usage for listing group members and mentions recursive expansion, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'use get_group for group properties'). Context from sibling tools provides implicit guidance, but explicit when-not or alternatives are missing.

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