Get Group Members

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

Beyond readOnlyHint, the description discloses important behavior: membership is required, email addresses are never shown, and anonymization causes names to appear as stable pseudonyms while IDs remain real. These are meaningful operational details an agent needs before calling the tool.

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 three short sentences with no wasted content. It leads with the core action and follows with important constraints and privacy behavior.

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?

Although there is no output schema, the description says the tool returns names and Canvas user IDs. Combined with the access constraint and anonymization note, it provides enough context to call the 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?

The schema has 100% coverage and already documents group_id as a Canvas group ID from list_my_groups. The description does not add parameter syntax or format details beyond that, so the baseline score of 3 is 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 states a specific verb and resource: listing members of a group, with the returned fields names and Canvas user IDs. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from nearby tools such as list_users or list_my_groups.

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 gives a key usage constraint: it only works for groups the caller belongs to. However, it does not say when to choose this tool over alternatives like list_users, list_my_groups, or list_groups.

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