jira_groups_get_members

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=true), the description adds the return format: group_name, total, members with fields. This discloses behavioral traits such as the structure of the response. No contradictions with annotations.

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 very concise: two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, and includes essential return details. No wasted words.

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?

For a simple read tool, the description covers purpose and return format. It does not explicitly explain pagination parameters (max_results, start_at) but those are in the schema. Output schema exists, so the return structure description adds value. Lacks minor contextual details but is sufficient.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add further meaning beyond what the schema already provides for parameters (group_name, max_results, start_at). It adequately covers parameter semantics through 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 clearly states 'Get members of a Jira group'. It specifies the resource (Jira group) and action (get members). It is easily distinguishable from sibling tools like jira_groups_list (list groups) and jira_groups_add_user (add user), and includes the return structure.

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 description provides clear context for a read operation to get group members, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like jira_groups_list. It lacks exclusion or contextual guidance, but the purpose is clear enough.

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