list_group_members

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the returned payload, including the non-obvious inclusion of invited-but-not-accepted members and the creator's MID, but says nothing about permissions/auth requirements or read-only safety.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence covering verb, resource, scope, and return contents with no wasted words. Slightly under-specified on usage rather than verbose, but structurally efficient.

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 single-parameter read tool, the definition covers the action, the target, and the returned fields (which compensates for the absent output schema). Missing only auth/permission context, a minor gap for a read operation.

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?

There is only one parameter (chatMid) and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents it fully (MID of the group, starting with 'c'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 (ดึง = retrieve) and resource (รายชื่อสมาชิก = member list) scoped to a group, and even names what is returned (MID, group creator, pending invitees). It is distinguishable from siblings like list_chats and list_friends by resource, though it does not explicitly name any alternative.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as list_friends or list_chats. The use case is only inferable from the resource noun, not stated.

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