pool_members

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description reinforces the read-only nature with '[READ]' and specifies the returned fields (IP, port, state, health), adding value beyond annotations.

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 short and well-structured: a clear header, fields list, usage guidance, and parameter definition. Every sentence adds value, and no words are wasted.

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 low complexity (1 parameter) and existence of an output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, usage context, dependencies, and return fields. It is complete for the tool's scope.

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?

Input schema has 0% description coverage for the 'pool' parameter. The description only says 'Pool name' with no format, examples, or further details. It barely compensates for the lack of schema description.

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 it lists all members of a pool with specific fields (server IP, port, enabled state, health status). It uses the verb 'list' and resource 'members of a pool', distinguishing it from siblings like pool_list (lists pools) and pool_member_disable/enable (modify members).

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?

Explicitly says to use this tool before enabling/disabling members during maintenance windows, and advises to run pool_list first if the pool name is unknown. This provides clear context and alternatives.

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