get_group_members

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses pagination behavior and the existence of a has_more field in the response, but it does not describe the return structure, error conditions (missing node/group), or confirmation that this is a read-only operation beyond the implicit 'get'.

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 purpose is front-loaded, followed by the pagination note and then the argument list. It is appropriately sized, though the Args block largely restates parameter names already visible in the schema, adding some low-value lines.

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?

There is no output schema or annotations, so the description must fully describe behavior. It covers pagination and the key has_more field, but the overall shape of the returned element indices and failure modes are left unexplained, leaving a moderate gap for a tool with five parameters.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does list all five parameters. Critically, it supplies the group_type enum values ('point', 'prim', 'edge') and the default for count, information absent from the schema. The per-parameter descriptions are terse and somewhat redundant ('Node path.'), keeping it short of a 5.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: retrieving element indices for members of a geometry group. This clearly differentiates it from the sibling get_groups (which lists groups rather than members), but it never names that sibling explicitly, so sibling differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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 does provide actionable pagination guidance ('Check has_more and increment start to read subsequent pages'), which tells the agent how to iterate. However, it gives no when-to-use context versus alternatives and no prerequisites (e.g. the group must already exist).

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