Group Members

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

readOnlyHint already declares this a safe read, so the description only needs to add context beyond that. It discloses the recursive-expansion behavior for nested=True, but says nothing about pagination via limit (default 1000), domain scoping, or result truncation, which matter for large groups.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the one non-obvious parameter tip. No filler, though the extreme brevity leaves gaps that a slightly longer description could close.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. However, with 0% schema coverage and no annotations beyond readOnlyHint, the definition omits how to scope by domain, what limit does, and whether nested results are flattened.

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 0% across 4 parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not: only 'nested' is explained. 'group', 'limit' (default 1000) and 'domain' (nullable) receive no meaning, format, or scoping guidance.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'List members of a group.' An agent can distinguish it from nearby siblings like get_group (group metadata) or user_groups (reverse direction), though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied by the tool name; there is no statement of when to prefer it over user_groups or is_member, and no prerequisites. The one guidance sentence ('Set nested=True for recursive membership') is helpful but narrow.

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