list_members

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does deliver one real trait: a 1000-result cap per call and the pagination recipe using `after` with the last returned id. It says nothing about required permissions or whether the listing is filtered (e.g., only members visible to the caller), which matters for a method that can silently omit results.

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 parenthetical sentence, front-loaded with the operation name and followed immediately by the pagination constraint; nothing is wasted. The Portuguese text with mojibake encoding ("até") slightly hurts readability but not structure.

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 not be described, and for a simple read tool the description covers the one non-obvious behavior (pagination). The remaining gap is sibling differentiation and permission context, which is modest for a three-parameter list operation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does explain `after` meaningfully (pass the last id to paginate) and implies the practical ceiling for `limit`. The required `guild_id` parameter is never mentioned, and there is no hint of the `after` default of "0" or whether ordering is ascending.

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 ("Lista membros") plus the per-call ceiling of 1000, so an agent immediately knows this is a member-listing operation. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling search_members, leaving the agent to guess which one to pick for a filtered lookup.

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?

Usage is only implied: the agent knows it can enumerate a guild's members and how to page through them. There is no statement of when to prefer this over search_members, nor any prerequisite about needing access to the guild.

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