ghost_list_members

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation ('List, search, filter') but states nothing about authentication requirements, pagination behavior, response format, or rate limits—critical gaps for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core functionality (list, search, filter) without any filler. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 list tool with all-optional parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It does not explain the return format, pagination details, or NQL filter syntax beyond the schema's examples, leaving some gaps for an agent that needs to handle results or filters 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema; it reinforces the tool's purpose ('search' and 'filter' map to parameters) but does not elaborate on any parameter nuances, such as NQL syntax or special behaviors, beyond what the schema already provides.

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 uses specific verbs ('List, search, and filter') and a clear resource ('members/subscribers of the Ghost publication'), which fully conveys the tool's scope. It is distinct from sibling list tools like ghost_list_posts or ghost_list_tiers by naming the member resource explicitly.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or conditions. An agent must rely solely on the tool name and context to infer its appropriate use, with no explicit routing away from other list operations.

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