list_vault_members

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. 'List' clearly indicates a read-only operation on members, which is the core behavioral trait. However, it does not disclose any assumptions about identifier requirements, pagination behavior, or response shape beyond what the schema already provides.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and selector options.

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 definition is adequate for a simple list operation, but it leaves ambiguity around required inputs: no parameters are marked required, yet the description implies at least one of shareId or vaultName should be provided. It also does not clarify behavior if both are supplied or neither is supplied.

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 parameters are already documented individually. The description adds meaningful relational semantics by stating that shareId and vaultName are alternative ways to identify the vault ('or'), which is not encoded in the schema.

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?

States a clear verb and resource: 'List members for a vault', with the identification mechanism ('by share ID or vault name'). This is distinct from sibling tools like list_vaults, list_shares, and update_vault_member.

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 context of use is clear: call this when you need the member list for a vault, identified by either share ID or vault name. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the intended usage is apparent and no misleading alternatives are mentioned.

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