get_group_members

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly states a read operation ('List members') and promises admin flags, but does not disclose potential limitations such as requiring a group chat, auth/permissions, pagination, or error 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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes: 'List' gives the action, 'members of a group chat' gives the scope, and 'with admin flags' adds return detail.

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?

For a simple one-parameter read tool, the description is minimally sufficient: it names the action and the object. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it lacks context about permissions, return shape, and how this tool fits with siblings, leaving some gaps for an agent to infer.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does add meaning by identifying that the chat is a group chat, implying chat_id refers to a group chat ID, but it does not explicitly explain chat_id's role, format, or how to obtain it.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('members of a group chat') and adds a distinguishing detail ('with admin flags'). This clearly separates it from siblings like list_chats and list_messages, which target different resources.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisite such as first calling list_chats to obtain a chat_id. The usage context is only implied by the name and description.

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