security-get-role-member

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Get members') but doesn't reveal any behavioral traits such as whether it's a read-only operation (implied by 'Get'), potential permissions required, rate limits, or what the output format looks like (e.g., list of users/roles). For a tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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, efficient sentence with zero waste—it directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 role membership tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like output format (e.g., whether it returns a list, JSON structure), error conditions, or security implications. For a tool that likely returns structured data about users/roles, more context is needed to guide the agent effectively.

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, providing clear details for all parameters (identity, recurse, userOnly, roleOnly). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining interactions between parameters (e.g., how userOnly and roleOnly work together). 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 verb ('Get') and resource ('members of a Sitecore role'), making the purpose specific and understandable. It distinguishes itself from other security tools like 'security-get-role-by-identity' or 'security-get-user-by-identity' by focusing on role members. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'security-add-role-member' or 'security-remove-role-member' beyond the verb, which keeps it from a perfect score.

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 prerequisites (e.g., needing the role identity), exclusions (e.g., not for modifying members), or related tools like 'security-add-role-member' for adding members. This lack of context leaves the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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