List Chat Members

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the return fields (user IDs, emails, tenant IDs, roles), which is useful but does not disclose pagination, ordering, or whether the result includes the requesting user. No contradiction with annotations.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the action and resource. It is appropriately sized with no wasted words, though it could add a brief usage note without becoming bloated.

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 read-only list tool with full schema coverage and safety annotations, the description is mostly adequate. However, it does not mention pagination, result size limits, or whether the chat must exist, which an agent might need to know for robust invocation. The lack of an output schema increases the burden slightly, but the listed return fields mitigate it.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema; it only restates the resource being listed. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the parameter documentation burden.

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 states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('chat members') and enumerates the fields returned (user IDs, emails, tenant IDs, roles). It is clear about what the tool does, though it does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like list_team_members or list_chats. The title and description align well.

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 implies usage for retrieving chat membership but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_team_members or search_users. The schema's tenantId description adds some context about when to omit tenantId, but the main description lacks when/when-not guidance.

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