list_members

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states the basic retrieval function, omitting any details about potential side effects, permissions, pagination, ordering, or error handling. '조회한다' implies a read operation, but no further transparency is offered.

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 extremely concise: one sentence and one argument line. There is no redundant information, and the key purpose is front-loaded. Every element serves a clear purpose, making it efficient for an AI agent to parse.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (single parameter, no nested objects) and the existence of an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it does not explain what the output contains (though the output schema may cover that), nor does it mention any preconditions. It serves the basic need but leaves gaps in completeness.

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%, meaning the description must compensate. The description repeats the parameter name 'trip_id' and adds '여행 ID' (trip ID), which adds minimal value beyond the schema's type declaration (integer). It does not clarify the format, allowed values, or relationship to other data, leaving the parameter under-documented.

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 '여행 멤버 목록을 조회한다' which translates to 'Retrieve the list of trip members.' The verb '조회한다' (retrieve) and resource '여행 멤버 목록' (trip member list) are specific and unambiguous. The tool name 'list_members' reinforces this, and it is distinct from sibling tools like get_trip or get_day_content.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions, nor any mention of prerequisites or context. The description simply states what the tool does without discussing usage scenarios.

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