Участники, роли и приглашения

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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/openWorld, so the bar is lower, and the description still adds real context: sections without sufficient rights are shown as unavailable, and invite links require the member.invite permission. These permission-dependent output behaviors are not derivable from the annotations or schema.

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?

Two compact sentences that front-load the content scope (who belongs, roles, invites) before the permission caveats. No filler, though the semicolon-chained clauses are slightly dense.

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 aggregation tool with no output schema and annotations covering the safety profile, the description is largely complete. It explains what is returned and the two permission-gated behaviors, leaving only the when-to-use dimension unaddressed.

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% for both parameters (case default resolution and with_permissions), so the schema carries the parameter meaning. The description adds nothing about the parameters, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 names a specific resource set: members with their roles and effective permissions, the roles defined in the case, and active invite links. It is clearly a read/list tool, distinguishable from members_save, members_remove, and invites_create, though the verb 'list' is only implied rather than stated.

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?

There is no explicit statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives. Siblings like invites_get, roles_* and members_save exist, but the description never routes the agent or states prerequisites or exclusions beyond the permission-based visibility notes.

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