get_participants

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

Annotations already declare read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds that aggressive mode iterates through index search pages, making the operation slower but more complete—a useful behavioral caveat beyond what annotations convey.

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 compact, front-loaded with the core purpose, and uses a bullet-like list for parameters. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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 output schema and annotations, the description covers the main parameters and includes the special aggressive-mode behavior. It omits the 'search' parameter and doesn't detail default pagination beyond the >200 hint, but remains adequate for the tool's complexity.

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%, but the description explains the limit range, all five filter booleans, and the aggressive flag. The only gap is the 'search' parameter, which is not mentioned, so most parameters gain meaning from the text.

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 opens with 'Список участников группы/канала' (list of participants of group/channel), clearly identifying the resource and action. This is distinct from sibling tools like list_chats or get_chat_info, which deal with chats themselves rather than their members.

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 gives practical context: valid limit range (1-200), the meaning of filters ('показать только эту категорию'), and when to use aggressive mode for channels with >200 participants. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear.

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