Get GitLab group member

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds the scope of membership (direct or inherited) and that the result includes the effective access level, but does not disclose error behavior or other edge cases. This is acceptable given the strong annotation coverage.

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 clear sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource. Every word earns its place, and it avoids repetition of schema or annotation details.

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?

The tool is simple with two parameters, an existing output schema, and read-only annotations. The description covers the core behavior and the only notable gap is the undocumented user_id parameter, which is not critical enough to reduce completeness further.

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 only 50%: the group parameter is documented (ID or full path), but user_id has no description and the tool description does not explain it. The description adds meaning about membership scope but does not compensate for the undocumented user_id parameter, leaving the agent to infer that it is a user identifier.

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 uses a specific verb-resource pair: "Get one direct or inherited group member and their effective access level." It clearly distinguishes this from listing all members (list_group_members) and from project member retrieval (get_project_member) by focusing on a single group member and the effective access level.

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 "one direct or inherited group member" implies this tool is for single-member lookups rather than listing all members. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling tool names and the singular/plural contrast provide enough context for when to choose this tool.

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