get_committee_members

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

No annotations are provided, so the description fully covers behavior: it is a read operation returning member details with pagination (page, page_size, has_more). It does not mention side effects, rate limits, or authorization, but for a read-only tool, the transparency is adequate.

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 well-structured with a summary, usage guidelines, arguments, and returns. It is front-loaded with the purpose, but includes both Korean and English text, making it slightly longer than necessary. Removing redundancy would improve 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 the presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers pagination and return fields. It differentiates from siblings like 'get_member_info' and 'get_bill_committee_review'. Missing details about error handling or edge cases are minor given the simple read operation.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates thoroughly: it explains each parameter with default values, ranges, examples ('법제사법위원회'), and special behavior (None for committee returns all members). This adds substantial value beyond the bare 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 explicitly states the tool retrieves the roster of a National Assembly committee with party breakdown, using a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('committee roster'). It clearly distinguishes from 'get_member_info' by noting this is more direct for committee rosters.

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 'When to use' section provides three clear scenarios: listing members, party composition analysis, and as a more direct alternative to 'get_member_info'. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives for other use cases, leaving some ambiguity.

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