List Group Members

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the 'direct members' scope and the additional tenant permissions for hidden-membership groups, which is useful. However, it does not mention return format, pagination, or default behavior when 'top' is omitted, leaving some transparency gaps.

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 three concise sentences: the core action, a permissions caveat, and Chinese intent variants. Every sentence earns its place with no fluff, and the key information is front-loaded.

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 simple list tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It covers the core behavior and an important permission nuance. It could benefit from a brief note on the return shape, but that is not critical given the schema and tool simplicity.

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%, and both parameters (groupId, top) have clear descriptions. The tool description adds no extra parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 'List direct members of a group' – a specific verb and resource. The term 'direct members' differentiates from sibling tools like groups_list_owners and groups_get, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 implies usage through 'List direct members of a group' but provides no explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use guidance. The hidden-membership permission caveat adds context, but it doesn't direct users to other group-related tools for different needs.

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