nworks_message_members

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and successfully discloses the authentication mechanism (Service Account) and dependency on nworks_setup. However, it omits details about the return format, pagination, or safety characteristics (read-only nature).

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?

Extremely efficient three-sentence structure: purpose declaration, usage example, and authentication requirement. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or filler content.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (single required parameter, simple read operation), the description is nearly complete. The critical omission is any indication of what the member list return value contains (fields, format), though the lack of output schema reduces the burden slightly.

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% with the 'channel' parameter already documented as '채널 channelId'. The description mentions '특정 채널' (specific channel) but does not add significant semantic value regarding parameter format, valid values, or where to obtain channelIds beyond the schema baseline.

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 a specific verb ('조회합니다' / retrieves) and resource ('구성원 목록' / member list) with clear scope ('특정 채널' / specific channel). It effectively distinguishes this from sibling tools like nworks_directory_members by emphasizing the channel context.

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?

Provides a concrete example query pattern ('이 채널에 누가 있어?' / 'Who is in this channel?') and explicitly states the prerequisite that nworks_setup is required for Service Account authentication. Lacks explicit guidance on when to use nworks_directory_members instead.

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