Участники, роли и приглашения

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds a useful behavioral detail: sections lacking permissions are marked as unavailable. This goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent understand partial access scenarios.

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 extremely concise: two sentences, the first listing the three output categories (members, roles, invitations), the second adding a single limitation note. Every word earns its place, no redundancy.

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 simple two-parameter read tool with full annotations, the description is nearly complete. It covers the primary output categories and a key permission-related behavior. Minor omissions like pagination or exact return format are not critical given the tool's simplicity.

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 both parameters (case, with_permissions) are fully documented in the schema. The description's phrase 'with what final rights' overlaps with the with_permissions parameter but does not add new semantic meaning 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 clearly identifies the tool as a read operation for case members, roles, and invitation links, enumerating the specific data returned. It distinguishes itself from mutation siblings like members_save, roles_delete, and invites_create by focusing on listing current state.

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 implies a read-only query context via its listing content and the readOnly annotations. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. The sibling set and annotations make the context clear, but the description alone lacks explicit guidance.

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