get_space_members

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 only states the action without mentioning any behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires specific permissions, potential rate limits, or what the output format looks like. For a tool with no annotations, this is insufficient to inform the agent adequately.

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: 'スペースメンバーのリストを取得します'. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, has zero wasted words, and is appropriately sized for a simple tool. Every part of the sentence earns its place by directly stating the action.

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 complexity of a tool that retrieves member data, the description is incomplete. There are no annotations, no output schema, and the description lacks details on behavioral aspects like permissions, return format, or error handling. While the purpose is clear, the overall context is insufficient for an agent to use the tool effectively without additional assumptions.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'space_id' documented as 'スペースID' (space ID). The description doesn't add any additional meaning beyond this, such as explaining the format of the space ID or providing examples. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema handles the parameter documentation adequately.

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: 'スペースメンバーのリストを取得します' (Get a list of space members). It specifies the verb '取得します' (get) and the resource 'スペースメンバーのリスト' (list of space members), making the action explicit. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'get_users' or 'get_group_users', which might have overlapping functionality, so it doesn't reach a score of 5.

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. There are sibling tools such as 'get_users' and 'get_group_users' that might retrieve user-related data, but the description doesn't clarify if this tool is for space-specific members, how it differs, or any prerequisites. This lack of context leaves usage unclear.

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