Get Group Member IDs

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It states a precondition but does not describe what happens if the bot is not a member, the return format, or any error behavior. The read-only nature is implied but not explicitly stated.

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 two concise sentences with no redundant information. It clearly states the action, the resource, and the prerequisite. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and requirements.

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 simplicity of the operation, the description is mostly sufficient but omits details about the return value (e.g., format of user IDs) and potential error conditions if the bot is not a member. It is adequate but not fully complete.

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 includes a description for the only parameter (groupId), so coverage is 100%. The tool description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema, 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 uses a clear verb 'Get' and specifies the resource ('user IDs of all members in a LINE group chat'). It also notes a key constraint ('bot must be a member'). However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like get_group_member_profile, so it isn't a perfect 5.

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 includes a precondition ('bot must be a member') but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention scenarios where this tool is inappropriate or preferred over other get_group_* tools.

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