get_group_members

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

With no annotations provided, the description adds useful behavioral context: results are paginated and has_more plus start increment hints at the response contract. It does not cover error handling or full return shape, but the pagination disclosure is meaningful beyond the schema.

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 compact, front-loads the main purpose, and uses a short Args list with no filler. Each line earns its place by adding param meaning or pagination guidance.

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?

Coverage is adequate for invoking the tool because all five parameters are listed with useful semantics and pagination is explained. Without an output schema, however, the exact response fields beyond has_more are left implicit, so there is still a meaningful gap.

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 schema has no parameter descriptions, so the description compensates by explaining group_type as 'point', 'prim', or 'edge', and defines start as 'first element index' and count as 'max elements per page'. The node_path and group_name entries are terse but acceptable.

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 and resource: 'Get element indices in a geometry group' and mentions pagination. It is unambiguous but does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings such as get_groups or other geometry query tools.

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?

It gives direct instruction on paging behavior: 'Check has_more and increment start to read subsequent pages.' However, it does not discuss when to choose this tool over alternatives or provide any exclusions, so selection guidance is only implied by the name and first line.

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