yuque_get_group_users

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a useful behavioral trait (fixed page size of 100) and the endpoint, but says nothing about auth requirements, how pagination beyond the first page works, or what trimmed vs raw output contains.

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?

Compact, front-loaded single block: purpose, page size, role values, endpoint, then a reference pointer. No filler, though the abbreviation-heavy style and the doc pointer are marginally less readable than plain prose.

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 4-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the resource, the fixed page size, the role filter encoding, and points to a reference doc for deeper API detail. It omits auth and pagination-total behavior, but is close to sufficient.

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 each parameter is already documented in the schema. The description restates the role mapping and page size but adds no new meaning beyond what the schema provides, matching the baseline 3.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('List group members') clearly distinct from mutation siblings like yuque_update_group_user and yuque_delete_group_user. It does not explicitly contrast with yuque_get_user_groups (the reverse direction), so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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 purpose implies when to use it (fetching membership of a known group), but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or named alternative such as yuque_get_group_statistics or yuque_get_user_groups. Usage is only implied.

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