nworks_directory_members

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

While annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, the description adds valuable behavioral context: it specifies Service Account authentication and the nworks_setup requirement, and it explains pagination via nextCursor. No contradictions with annotations found.

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 paragraph with multiple sentences, each adding value: purpose, use cases, auth requirement, and pagination. It is front-loaded with the primary function and remains concise, without fluff or repetition.

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 read-only list tool with simple parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, use cases, auth prerequisite, and pagination behavior. It implies that the response contains userId, which is critical for downstream message sending. While it doesn't enumerate all response fields, the provided context is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 already provides 100% coverage of both parameters (count and cursor), including descriptions. The description only reiterates that cursor is used for pagination, which is already in the schema. It adds no new meaning beyond what the schema documents, so the baseline score 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 clearly states the tool's function: it retrieves the list of NAVER WORKS organization members. It provides concrete example use cases like 'show me the member list', 'find a teammate', and 'find the userId to send a message to', which makes its purpose unmistakable and differentiates it from sibling tools such as nworks_message_send or nworks_contact_list.

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 specific scenarios when the tool is used, such as looking up userId for messaging, and notes the prerequisite of nworks_setup. It does not explicitly list when not to use it or mention alternative tools, but the examples and context provide sufficient guidance for an agent to select it appropriately.

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