huddo_members

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

readOnlyHint=true already declares the safe read profile, so the description's added value is the explicit return format and the presence enumeration (online|offline|unknown), plus the meaning of identity_type. It doesn't mention any membership/permission limitations, but for a read tool with annotations this is solid added context.

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 the core purpose front-loaded and the output-format detail following immediately. Every sentence carries information; no filler.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by fully specifying the returned line format, the meaning of each field, and the possible presence values. Combined with schema-documented parameters, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret the result.

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%, so both parameters ('as' and 'room') are fully documented in the schema, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds no parameter-level detail such as default behavior or accepted room identifier formats beyond what the schema already states.

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 opens with a precise verb+resource ('List the members of a room') and even specifies the output shape with presence. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like huddo_show or huddo_whoami by being about room membership, though it never names those alternatives explicitly.

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 choose this over huddo_show, huddo_list, or huddo_whoami, nor any stated preconditions (e.g. must be in the room). Usage is only implied by the tool's name and purpose.

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