list_lb_pool_members

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that it 'Reports configured state only, not live health-monitor results,' which is useful behavioral context beyond annotations. However, it does not mention rate limits, pagination, or error behavior.

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 tight, front-loaded paragraph: first the action, then the return fields, then usage guidance, then a caveat. Every sentence is relevant and no words are wasted.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so return values need not be explained. The description covers purpose, usage, and a key behavioral caveat (configured state only). The only minor gap is lack of explicit mention of what the output schema contains (e.g., member names, IP format), but that is acceptable given the output schema exists.

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 schema fully documents the 'pool' parameter, including exact matching and the warning not to infer it from a VS name. The description reinforces this by directing users to run list_lb_pools first, adding mild value beyond the schema. Baseline is 3, but the cross-tool guidance nudges this higher.

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 starts with a specific verb and resource: 'List the members of a pool.' It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like list_lb_pools (which lists pools, not members) and enable/disable_lb_pool_member (which are mutations). The [READ] marker reinforces it as a read operation.

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?

It explicitly says to 'Use before enable_lb_pool_member or disable_lb_pool_member' and 'run list_lb_pools first for the pool name.' This gives both prerequisite ordering and downstream usage, leaving little inference needed.

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