sw_api_members

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose a genuinely useful behavioral trait: output can be very large (IModelDoc2 has 762 members) and should be narrowed with kind. It also discloses the breadth of coverage (all 10 namespaces) and the payload structure. It omits any note on permissions or rate limits, but for a read-only doc lookup that is minor.

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?

Three front-loaded sentences: scope first, coverage second, size warning and filter tip last. Slightly redundant between 'resumen de una linea' and 'Incluye la ficha: resumen...', but every sentence conveys actionable 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?

No output schema and no annotations, so the description must describe the return shape, which it does (one-line summaries, interface card with summary, accessors, functional category, official examples). Combined with the size warning and filter advice, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only the exact response format remains unspecified.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate and largely does: it implies iface is the interface name and supplies example values (IFeatureManager, IBody2, IFace2), and it explains what the kind filter does ('si solo quieres propiedades') beyond the bare enum. Format/acceptability details for iface are still left implicit.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: lists all members of an interface with a one-line summary, covering the 10 namespaces of the 2026 help. It also names concrete example interfaces (IFeatureManager, IBody2, IFace2), so the agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It does not, however, differentiate itself from overlapping siblings like sw_api_search or sw_api_doc.

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?

Gives an implicit usage scenario ('para descubrir que se puede hacer con...') and one concrete tip ('filtra con kind si solo quieres propiedades'), but never says when to prefer this over sw_api_search or sw_api_doc, nor any exclusion conditions. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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