get_workspace_member

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds no further behavioral context, such as what happens when the member doesn't exist or whether output is scoped to the workspace. With rich annotations, a 3 is appropriate — it neither adds nor contradicts.

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?

Two tight sentences: the action and key first, then the routing rule. Every clause earns its place and nothing is buried.

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?

With an output schema, full parameter documentation and complete annotations, the tool is callable as specified. The only missing piece is edge-case behavior — e.g., the error/response when no membership record matches the given ID pair.

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 coverage is 100%, and the schema already specifies UUID format for user_id and notes it must come from list_all_users rather than an email. The description only restates that both IDs are the lookup key, which is the baseline expectation when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States the exact verb and resource ('Get one workspace member') and pins the lookup key ('by workspace_id and user_id'), which immediately separates it from list_workspace_members and the mutation siblings (add/update/remove_workspace_member). An agent can identify the tool without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly states the precondition ('when you already know both IDs') and names the alternative with the condition that selects it ('use list_workspace_members to browse the full roster'). No inference required.

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