ghost_get_members

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states 'Retrieves a list', implying a read-only operation, but fails to disclose behavioral traits such as pagination behavior, error handling, authentication requirements, or the impact of NQL filtering. The description does not add value beyond what is implied by the verb.

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, well-structured sentence of 14 words, front-loaded with the key action. It is concise and efficient, though it could benefit from expanding slightly to cover usage guidelines without losing conciseness.

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 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the NQL filter format, pagination details, or return value structure. The context signals indicate complexity, but the description fails to provide a complete understanding for the agent.

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 60%, with filter, include, and order already described in the schema. The description adds the phrase 'optional filtering, pagination, and includes', which aligns with the parameters but does not provide additional meaning beyond acknowledging their existence. Baseline 3 is appropriate as schema does partial work and description adds marginal value.

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 the verb 'Retrieves', the resource 'list of members (subscribers)', and the context 'Ghost CMS'. It also mentions optional filtering, pagination, and includes, which distinguishes it from siblings like ghost_get_member (singular) and ghost_search_members (likely search).

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like ghost_search_members or ghost_get_member. Despite many sibling tools, no explicit context or exclusions are given, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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