List IRC channel members

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals a safe read operation, and the description adds the 'mode prefixes' detail. However, no additional behavioral context is provided (e.g., whether the member list is live, rate limits, or authentication requirements). The description does not contradict the annotations.

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 concise sentence with no filler or repetition. It is front-loaded with the action and immediately conveys the tool's 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?

The tool is simple and has an output schema, but the description leaves the optional account parameter underexplained and offers no usage guidance. It is adequate for basic use but has clear gaps given the schema's lack of parameter descriptions.

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 schema has no descriptions (0% coverage) and the description only explains 'channel' by implication. The optional 'account' parameter is completely unexplained, leaving ambiguity about whether it refers to a network, server, or user account.

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 action ('List') and the specific resource ('current members of a channel') along with the returned detail ('mode prefixes'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like irc_list_networks or irc_whois.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as irc_whois or irc_list_conversations. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or fallback tools, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name.

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