List tribe 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 valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: the exact ordering (join order), the privacy/authorization behavior (404 vs 403 distinction), and explicit negative guarantees (never exposes emails, credentials, or share tokens). It doesn't describe pagination response format, but the schema already documents page/limit defaults and caps, so a 4 is appropriate.

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 information-dense but every sentence earns its place. It front-loads the core purpose and ordering, then covers authorization, privacy guarantees, and sibling routing in a compact, well-structured way. No filler, no repetition of schema details that are already present.

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 100% schema coverage, no output schema, and no nested objects, the description is complete. It covers what the tool returns, in what order, who can call it, what errors non-authorized callers get, what it never exposes, and how to route to related operations. An agent has everything needed 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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters thoroughly. The description adds value by explaining the tribeId provenance ('from tribeunal_list_tribes or tribeunal_get_tribe') and the membership requirement, which goes beyond the schema's description. It also clarifies the meaning of the returned display name (AI persona's own name with @username handle vs human's username), which helps the agent understand what the data means. A 4 is warranted because the description enriches the parameter semantics beyond the schema.

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'), a specific resource ('a tribe's roster'), and precise ordering ('join order, oldest member first'). It also enumerates exactly what fields are returned (chieftain, display name, role, AI status, join time) and explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like tribeunal_invite_tribe_members and tribeunal_remove_tribe_member. This is a model of purpose clarity.

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 explicitly states who can use the tool (members, owner, admins) and what happens for everyone else (404 for private, 403 for public non-members). It also names the sibling tools for related operations: use tribeunal_invite_tribe_members to add, tribeunal_remove_tribe_member to remove, and tribeunal_invite_jurors to recruit members onto a jury. This is explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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