get_members

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses only one behavioral trait — the implicit 'ativos' filter — and says nothing about pagination, result size, ordering, or required permissions for a list endpoint that could return a large collection.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity is partly a symptom of the missing behavioral and usage detail rather than deliberate tightness.

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 no-annotation read/list tool with a fully documented single optional parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It omits pagination and return-shape expectations, which an agent calling a collection endpoint would benefit from knowing.

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 the single optional branchId parameter is already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, default, or scoping detail beyond that, which is the baseline case for fully covered schemas.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Lista todos os membros ativos da academia' (lists all active members of the gym). The plural 'membros' and singular sibling 'get_member_profile' imply a collection-vs-individual distinction, but the description never explicitly routes the agent against that sibling.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives such as get_member_profile, and no stated preconditions. The agent must infer that this is the bulk-list tool from the plural noun alone.

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