nworks_message_members

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds that it uses Service Account authentication and requires prior setup (nworks_setup), which is behavioral context beyond the annotations. No contradictions 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 concise, two sentences, and front-loads the core purpose. The usage example and auth note are both valuable and non-redundant. Every sentence earns its place.

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 that the tool has only one parameter, annotations cover safety (read-only, idempotent), and there is no output schema, the description is adequate. It does not mention the return format or padding details, but for a simple list operation, this is a minor gap.

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 the parameter 'channel' is already described as '채널 channelId'. The description does not add further detail about the parameter format or expected values, so baseline 3 is correct.

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 lists members of a specific channel, with a concrete example query. The verb '조회' (query) and resource '채널의 구성원' are specific, and the tool name directly matches the purpose. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like nworks_directory_members, which likely lists directory members, and nworks_message_send, which sends messages.

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 explicitly provides a usage example ('이 채널에 누가 있어?' 라는 요청에 사용) and specifies the authentication prerequisite (Service Account 인증 사용, nworks_setup 필요). This tells the agent when to use it and what setup is required, although it does not explicitly mention alternatives, the sibling context makes it clear that nworks_directory_members is the alternative for directory members.

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