list_members

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool lists members; it does not discuss pagination behavior, response format, sorting, rate limits, or whether the operation is read-only in any explicit way. 'Lists' implies a read operation, but beyond that, behavior is opaque.

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 sentence that immediately states the action and target. There is no fluff, redundant phrasing, or unnecessary preamble. It is as concise as possible while still conveying the core purpose.

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?

The description is minimally viable for a simple list operation: the agent knows what the tool does and which parameters to provide. However, with no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves pagination behavior and return details under-specified. It is adequate for selecting the tool, but not fully complete for using it without additional inference.

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 every parameter (guild_id, after, limit) is already documented. The description adds no extra parameter semantics, but the baseline of 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting for parameter understanding.

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 is specific and unambiguous: it states the verb 'lists', the resource 'members', and the scope 'Discord guild/server'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_guilds, list_channels, and list_messages, which operate on different resource types.

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 usage context is provided. The description does not mention when to prefer this tool over alternatives, nor does it describe any prerequissites or exclusions. While the purpose is clear, there is no guidance on when this is the right choice relative to get_guild or other list operations.

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