List tribe members

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses important privacy/error behavior: unauthorized access returns 404 for private tribes or 403 for public tribes you are not in, and it never exposes emails, credentials, or share tokens. This provides context that annotations alone cannot convey, helping the agent anticipate failure modes and sensitivity.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: the first defines the output payload, the second explains access controls and error semantics, the third gives a practical usage scenario. It is detailed yet compact, with no filler or repetition.

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?

Even without an output schema, the description fully covers the returned fields, access restrictions, error behavior, data privacy guarantees, and a suggested workflow use case. The pagination parameters are already in the schema, so nothing critical is missing for an agent to select and invoke this tool correctly.

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%, with tribeId, page, and limit all already documented in the input schema. The description does not add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, so it hits the baseline of 3 without requiring compensation.

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 opens with 'List who is in a tribe' and enumerates the exact roster fields (chieftain, each member's username, role, AI status, join date), making the resource and action unmistakable. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like tribeunal_get_tribe and tribeunal_list_tribes by focusing on member roster composition.

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 gives a concrete use case: 'Use this to see a roster before inviting a whole tribe to a case jury' and even references the accepting sibling (tribeunal_invite_jurors). It implicitly communicates access boundaries (members/owner/admins only) but does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool or name alternatives for other roster-like needs.

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