planner_list_plan_members

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the key behavioral fact that membership is resolved through the owning M365 group. It says nothing about whether the call requires group read permissions, whether results are paginated, or what happens when the group has no members — gaps that matter for an unannotated tool.

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?

A single tight sentence with the scope stated first and the intended use in a compact parenthetical. No filler and nothing redundant.

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, and the tool is a simple single-parameter read. The remaining shortfall is the missing link to planner_assign_task and planner_find_member, which would complete the workflow picture.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the single undocumented parameter, and it does not — plan_id's expected format or where to obtain it is never mentioned. The parameter is largely self-explanatory by name, so this is a moderate rather than severe gap.

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 verb and resource ('List the members of a plan's owning M365 group') and clarifies a non-obvious scoping fact: the members come from the group that owns the plan, not the plan itself. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling planner_find_member, which could appear to do something similar.

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 parenthetical '(to get user ids for assignment)' implies the workflow — call this before assigning tasks — which is genuinely useful context. However, it never names the follow-up tool (planner_assign_task) or the alternative (planner_find_member), so the agent must infer which one to use.

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