list_association_board_members

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states the return type ('Dictionary with board members list') and parameter defaults (via Args section), but does not explicitly confirm it's read-only, mention error handling for invalid IDs, or describe pagination behavior beyond the defaults. The lack of safety annotations increases the need for explicit behavioral context.

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 tightly structured with a clear purpose sentence, an Args block, and a Returns line. It uses minimal words, contains no redundant fluff, and follows a standard docstring format. Every line contributes useful information for a simple list tool.

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 straightforward list operation, the description covers the core purpose, parameters, and return type. However, it lacks usage guidelines and deeper behavioral context (e.g., what happens if the association doesn't exist, sorting order, or whether pagination is cursor-based). Given the presence of an output schema and the tool's simplicity, a 3 is appropriate—it's adequate but not comprehensive.

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?

Despite the schema having 0% description coverage, the description provides one-line explanations for each parameter: association_id, limit (maximum results), and offset (pagination). These add meaning beyond the raw schema, though association_id's description is somewhat tautological. The defaults are also restated, which helps, so it compensates reasonably for the missing schema descriptions.

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 function: 'List board members for a specific association.' It uses a specific verb ('list') and resource ('board members'), and the association_id parameter clarifies scope. While it differentiates from siblings like list_association_owners by naming the resource, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion criteria, so it falls short of a 5.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks any mention of prerequisites (e.g., association must exist), when not to use it, or preferred alternatives for other member types. The sibling list includes similar tools like list_association_owners, but the description gives no comparative context.

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