list_channel_members

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden, and it does disclose the read-only nature and the field set (id, display name, email, roles). However, it omits auth requirements, pagination behavior, and result-size limits, which matter for a potentially large member list.

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 short lines, front-loaded with the purpose, then output fields, then the prerequisite. The field enumeration is somewhat redundant with the existing output schema, costing it a point.

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?

Because an output schema exists, the description need not explain return values, so that line is a bonus rather than a necessity. The real remaining gaps are team_id semantics and pagination behavior on a list tool with no annotations to fall back on.

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 both required parameters need compensating detail. The description explains where channel_id comes from (list_channels) but says nothing about team_id or its relationship to the channel, leaving one of two parameters undocumented.

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 ("List members of a specific channel"), and the scope word "channel" separates it from the sibling list_team_members and list_chat_members. It does not name those siblings explicitly, but the resource noun alone is enough to disambiguate.

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 actionable prerequisite — "Use list_channels to get the channel_id" — which is the main thing an agent needs before calling this tool. It stops short of stating when-not to use it versus list_team_members or list_chat_members.

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