list_group_members

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry full behavioral transparency. It specifies the return format (JSON array of groups with name, member count, and members) and the required argument. However, it doesn't disclose any authorization requirements, error behaviors, or potential limitations (e.g., whether it returns all groups or only visible ones), leaving some behavioral gaps.

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 concise and well-structured: it states the purpose in one line, lists the argument with its meaning, and clearly specifies the return format. Every sentence earns its place and there is no redundant information.

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 listing tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, what input it needs, and what it returns. It could mention edge cases or usage caveats, but overall it is sufficiently complete for its complexity.

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?

The input schema only defines course_id as an integer with no description, and schema coverage is 0%. The description compensates by stating 'course_id: The Moodle course ID,' adding valuable semantic context. For a single parameter, this is sufficient to clarify its meaning, though it doesn't elaborate on format or constraints.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List groups (comisiones) with their member lists.' It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like list_groups by emphasizing the inclusion of member lists, and it names the required input (course_id) and the returned 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 clearly implies when to use this tool: when you need groups and their member details for a specific Moodle course. Though it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion cases, the scope is clear enough from the wording and the context of sibling tools.

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