List Community Member's Access Groups

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world), so the bar is lower, yet the description adds real behavioral context: it is a read of community data, all_pages is bounded, and every page consumes API quota. It stops short of describing rate-limit specifics or return shape.

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 sentences, with the core action front-loaded before the pagination caveat. Very little waste, though the final quota clause is terse enough to read as a fragment rather than a complete behavioral note.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description could have described what a result contains (access group records) but does not. It covers the pagination/quota dimension adequately but leaves usage context and return expectations to inference for a tool with six parameters.

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 all six parameters are documented in the schema, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds marginal meaning for all_pages (quota cost per page) but says nothing extra about account, page, per_page, max_items, or community_member_id.

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 and resource: 'List' + 'Community Member's Access Groups', which is a distinct scope from the sibling list_access_groups (community-wide) and get_access_group_community_member. It does not explicitly name those siblings to disambiguate, so it falls short of a 5.

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 when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance is given. An agent must infer from context whether this or list_access_groups / get_access_group_community_member is the right call, and no prerequisites (e.g. required membership) are stated.

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