List group members

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

The description adds value beyond annotations by specifying the return format (JSON array of user objects with id, username, email (or null), and enabled status). Annotations already declare read-only and idempotent; the description confirms and elaborates.

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?

Three sentences, each serving a purpose: declaring idempotent/read-only, stating the function with prerequisite, and describing the return format. No wasted words.

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 one parameter and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: prerequisite, return format, and fields. It does not mention pagination or limits, but such details may be unnecessary for this tool.

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 coverage is 100% with a detailed description for groupId. The description adds minimal extra meaning by reiterating that groupId is the UUID from keycloak_group_list, which is already implied in the schema. Baseline 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 the verb 'lists' and the resource 'users that are direct members of the given group.' It distinguishes from sibling tools like keycloak_group_list (list groups) and keycloak_user_groups_list (list user's groups) by specifying 'direct members.'

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?

Explicitly advises to resolve the group ID with keycloak_group_list first. While it does not provide when-not-to-use guidance, the context of sibling tools and the specific description make its usage clear for listing direct members only.

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