skool_members_list

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 implies a read operation ('list ... returns') and names the returned fields plus pagination support, which is useful. But it stays silent on whether pending members are included, page size defaults, ordering, and how pagination terminates — meaningful gaps given the sibling skool_members_pending.

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 with zero filler: the action and resource are front-loaded, and the return-field enumeration earns its place. Nothing could be trimmed without losing meaning.

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 low-complexity read tool with two optional parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the action, key return fields, and pagination — enough for an agent to invoke it correctly. The remaining gaps are page size/default limit and whether pending members are excluded, which are moderate for someone paging through a full member list.

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%, with both page and community having inline descriptions. The description's mention of 'pagination' and 'community members' mostly echoes the schema rather than adding new semantic detail, so the baseline 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?

"List community members with pagination" states a specific verb and resource, reinforced by the return fields (name, bio, role, online status), which clearly separates it from posts, courses, and notifications siblings. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from skool_members_pending, so an agent must infer whether this covers all members or only approved ones.

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 given on when to use this tool versus skool_members_pending, skool_members_approve, or skool_members_reject. The only operational note — 'Uses default from config if omitted' — lives in the schema, not the description, and concerns parameter behavior rather than tool selection.

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