Find Member by Name

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

Annotations already declare read-only and idempotent behavior, lowering the bar for additional disclosure. However, the description adds only the vague promise of 'without guessing ambiguity' and does not explain return format, matching rules, or any constraints like workspace_id requirements.

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, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It efficiently conveys the core purpose and scope, making it easy to parse.

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 tool with no output schema and no parameter descriptions, the description is too sparse. It fails to clarify when to prefer this over sibling tools like search_workspace or resolve_assignees and does not indicate what the tool returns, leaving the agent without sufficient context for correct invocation.

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 descriptions are absent (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It mentions searching by ID/name/email, which maps to the 'query' parameter, but does not clarify expected input format or the optional 'workspace_id' parameter. This is insufficient compensation for the missing schema documentation.

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 action (Find), the resource (ClickUp Workspace members), and the scope (by ID, name, or email). The phrase 'without guessing ambiguity' distinguishes it from broader search tools, making the purpose explicit and specific.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search_workspace or resolve_assignees. It implies a need for unambiguous member lookup but offers no direct comparison or exclusionary guidance.

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