group_members

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the core action, without mentioning pagination behavior, whether stats are included via include_stats, or any constraints/requirements. No side effects or return characteristics are disclosed.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It efficiently conveys the tool's main purpose without fluff, though this brevity contributes to the lack of parameter coverage.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description is minimal: it omits explanation of the meaning of limit/offset/include_stats and does not elaborate on the 'resolved' prerequisite. For a tool with four parameters and zero schema descriptions, the description is insufficiently complete to guide correct invocation.

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%, and the description mentions none of the parameters (chat, limit, offset, include_stats). The description does not compensate for the lack of parameter documentation, relying entirely on the bare parameter names 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('List') and explicitly states the resource ('group members and group nicknames') for a resolved group chat. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like read_chat_range or timeline, which focus on messages rather than membership.

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 phrase 'for a resolved group chat' implies a prerequisite to use resolve_chat first, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives or provide any exclusions. The usage context is implied rather than explicitly guided.

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