pool_members

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by specifying the output fields (IP, port, enabled state, health status), which goes beyond annotations. No contradictions. The '[READ]' tag reinforces the 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?

The description is concise: two lines for purpose and usage, a usage block, and an Args block. Every sentence is informative and no filler. The structure is front-loaded with the key action.

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 existence of an output schema, the description need not detail return structure. It already mentions the key output fields. With comprehensive annotations and clear usage context, the description is complete for this tool's complexity.

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 0%, so the description should compensate. The 'Args: pool: Pool name' essentially repeats the schema's 'title' and type. For a simple string parameter, this is minimally adequate but adds no extra meaning (e.g., format, constraints, or examples).

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 explicitly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'members of a pool', and specifies the returned fields (IP, port, enabled state, health status). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools 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?

The description provides explicit when-to-use guidance ('Use this before enabling/disabling individual members during maintenance windows') and a prerequisite ('Run pool_list first if you don't know the exact pool name'). It implies not to use it for modification, aligning with sibling tools.

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