tocaro_get_group_members

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose error behavior for invalid group codes and specifies the required group code format. However, it does not mention whether the operation is read-only, pagination behavior, or any other side effects, though the '取得する' verb and output schema mitigate some ambiguity.

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 only two sentences with no wasted words. The purpose is front-loaded, and the second sentence provides essential parameter semantics. Every sentence earns its place.

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 one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential context: what input to supply, from where, and what happens with invalid input. It could mention pagination or permissions, but the tool is simple enough that these are not major 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 0%, so the description is the only documentation for the parameter. It fully compensates by defining the exact format ('gr' + 8-9 characters), where to get the value (tocaro_list_groups), and the consequence of providing an invalid value. The single parameter is completely unambiguous.

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 states the action (get member list) and the resource (specified group), using a specific verb and resource combination. It is distinct from sibling tools like tocaro_search_users and tocaro_list_groups because it targets group membership specifically.

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 gives concrete usage guidance: obtain the group code from tocaro_list_groups and pass that code. It also warns that a nonexistent group code causes an error. It does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool versus alternatives, but the scope is clear enough that an agent can route correctly.

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