find_member

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does convey the core behavior: find the first matching server member and return their user id. But it omits no-match behavior, matching semantics like exact vs partial or case sensitivity, and how 'first' is ordered, and it never confirms the operation is read-only.

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 a single compact sentence that leads with the returned value, then states the search criterion and intended use. No filler or redundant restatement of the tool name is present.

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?

For a two-parameter lookup, the description plus schema covers the input and the returned value well. However, there is no output schema or annotation, and important context such as no-match behavior, ordering, and authorization is missing, leaving the description 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains `name` as username/nickname and `guild_id` as server id with a default-server fallback. The description adds the context that the match is the first server member and that the output feeds author_id searches, but it does not significantly extend parameter-level meaning.

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 identifies the tool as returning the user id of the first server member matching `name`, and it connects the result to `author_id` searches. This is a specific lookup action distinct from sibling tools that search guilds, channels, or DMs, though it does not explicitly contrast with them.

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 phrase 'for `author_id` searches' gives an implied use case, so an agent can infer when this tool is relevant. However, it does not state when not to use it or explicitly compare it to alternative sibling tools, leaving the guidance only implicit.

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