koios_committee_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It merely says 'Get information', offering no details about return format, pagination, filtering behavior, or any side effects. This is essentially a bare verb with no added transparency.

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 extremely short, but it is under-specified—it is a command-like phrase rather than a complete, informative sentence. It includes no extra context or usage details, making it more of a restatement of the tool name than a helpful description.

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 tool's 5 optional parameters and lack of an output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what kind of data is returned (e.g., committee member details, status), how filtering works, or any relevant edge cases. This is especially inadequate for an API tool with pagination and filtering options.

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 input schema has 100% parameter description coverage, including meaning for limit, order, offset, select, and _cc_hot_id. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning, but the schema already fully documents the parameters, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states a specific resource (Constitutional Committee member information) with a clear verb ('Get'), and it is distinguishable from sibling tools like koios_committee_votes by focusing on member info rather than votes. However, it does not specify whether the tool returns all members or a specific one, which the schema hints at via the _cc_hot_id parameter.

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. It does not mention that it complements committee_votes or any other sibling, nor does it describe the typical scenario (e.g., querying member details by hot key). This leaves the agent to infer usage solely from the name.

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