Get Group Members

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations, such as supporting partial name matching ('partial name to match') and specifying the return fields (names, usernames, emails). This goes beyond the safety profile already provided, though it doesn't disclose edge-case behaviors like error handling.

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, with a clear first sentence and a compact args list. However, the args list largely duplicates the schema information for limit, offset, and response_format, which is minor redundancy. It remains appropriately sized and front-loaded with the purpose.

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, strong schema coverage, and rich annotations, the description is fairly complete. It covers return values, which is important since there is no output schema. It lacks context on possible errors or behavior when no matches are found, but for a simple read-only group-member lookup, this 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 adds the detail that group_identifier accepts a 'partial name to match', which is not stated in the schema (schema says 'Group name or sys_id'). It also summarizes pagination and response_format, but slightly less detailed than the schema. The partial-match addition increases semantic clarity.

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 tool's purpose: 'Get all members of a ServiceNow user group.' This is a specific verb+resource combination. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, but the resource (group members) is distinct enough for an agent to understand what it does.

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 vs alternatives like list_users or get_user. It only states what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer context. No exclusions or alternative suggestions are mentioned.

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