Get a Redmine project membership

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: it explains permission enforcement, possible HTTP 403, result characteristics (user/group distinction, inherited flags, no admin group links), and confirms no data mutation. This goes beyond annotations and provides valuable safety and error-handling information.

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 structured efficiently, leading with the core purpose, then parameter detail, result specifics, permission behavior, and a final safety note. Each sentence contributes unique information without redundancy, and the length is justified by the richness of context provided.

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 structures. It covers the tool's action, parameter constraints, permission outcomes, and result nuances, making it sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke correctly. Minor omissions like explicit pagination or full output format are covered by the output schema, so this is well-rounded.

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 input schema already fully describes membership_id as a positive safe integer with bounds, and description coverage is 100%. The description repeats 'positive safe integer' and adds that the endpoint has no query parameters, but does not introduce new parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'Read one project membership' and identifies the resource and endpoint. It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling list_project_memberships by specifying it retrieves a single item by ID, making the purpose unambiguous and differentiating from related tools.

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 implies usage when a single membership is needed by ID and notes it is a non-admin read that may return 403. However, it does not explicitly contrast with list_project_memberships or state when to prefer this tool over others, leaving some selection guidance implicit.

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