List Group Members

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations by specifying the return format options (markdown/json), pagination behavior (limit/offset), error handling ('Error: Resource not found'), and what data is returned (name, role, join date). This significantly enhances transparency.

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 well-structured with a clear purpose statement followed by Args and Returns sections. It's appropriately sized with no wasted sentences, though the parameter details in the description somewhat duplicate schema information. The front-loaded purpose statement is effective, but some redundancy slightly reduces efficiency.

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 tool's moderate complexity (5 parameters, 1 required), rich annotations (4 hints), and 100% schema coverage, the description is complete enough. It explains what the tool does, provides usage guidance, describes return values and error handling, and complements the structured data well. No output schema exists, so the description appropriately covers return information.

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 fully documents all 5 parameters with descriptions, enums, defaults, and constraints. The description repeats some of this information (e.g., filter options, limit range, default values) but doesn't add significant meaning beyond what's in the schema. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the specific action ('List members') and resource ('of a specific group in Planning Center Groups'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like pco_list_groups (which lists groups) and pco_list_people (which lists people generally). The verb+resource combination is precise and unambiguous.

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 provides clear context by specifying it's for 'a specific group' and mentions obtaining the group_id from pco_list_groups, which is helpful guidance. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like pco_get_group (which might return group details including members) or when not to use it, leaving some room for improvement.

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