get_group_users

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('取得します' - get/retrieve) but doesn't describe return format (e.g., list structure, pagination), permissions required, rate limits, or error conditions. For a read operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding tool behavior.

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?

The description is a single, clear sentence in Japanese that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it efficient and easy to parse. Every part of the sentence contributes essential information.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (single parameter, read-only operation), the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it lacks details on return values, permissions, or error handling. For a basic retrieval tool, it meets the minimum but doesn't provide rich context for reliable agent use.

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 the single parameter 'group_code' documented in the schema as 'グループコード' (group code). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema (it doesn't explain format, examples, or constraints). With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 tool's purpose: '指定したグループに所属するユーザーの一覧を取得します' translates to 'Get a list of users belonging to the specified group.' This provides a specific verb ('取得します' - get/retrieve) and resource (users in a group). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_users' or 'get_groups', which could retrieve similar data.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'get_users' (which might retrieve all users) or 'get_groups' (which might retrieve group metadata), nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is implied but not explicitly stated.

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