get-category-members

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state that the tool returns member titles and IDs, but it omits important behavioral traits such as pagination behavior, the effect of the 'limit' parameter, and how the continuation token works. The claim to 'List all' members is misleading given the default limit of 50, and no details about auth or rate limits are provided, leaving the agent underinformed.

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 concise and front-loaded, consisting of three short sentences. The first sentence states the core action and scope, the second describes the return value, and the third gives immediate usage guidance. Every sentence contributes useful information without redundancy or filler.

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 tool has 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, so the description must compensate by explaining behaviors like pagination and limits. It does not mention that the 'limit' parameter caps results (contradicting the 'all' claim) or how continuing pagination works with 'continue_from'. The description also omits any mention of the 'wiki' parameter or error cases, making it incomplete for effective autonomous use.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema: it mentions the 'type' filter, which is already documented in the schema's enum, and the return type (titles and IDs) but does not explain parameter semantics like the 'category' prefix handling or how 'continue_from' is used. Thus, the description neither compensates for gaps nor adds significant meaning, aligning with the baseline.

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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('List') and resource ('pages, subcategories, or files within a specific category'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list-categories (which lists categories) and get-page (which retrieves a single page) by focusing on category members. The mention of returning member titles and IDs further clarifies the function.

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 for when to use the tool (listing category members) and offers usage guidance for the 'type' parameter ('Use type to filter'). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, leaving some inference required from the sibling tool names. This meets the 'implied usage' level but lacks explicit exclusions or alternative references.

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