get_workspace_member

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a minimal behavioral fact: it returns a single member and requires both IDs. However, it does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as error handling, rate limits, or authentication requirements. With annotations carrying most of the burden, this description adds only marginal transparency beyond them.

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 two sentences: the first states the purpose and the second gives usage guidance. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, contains zero filler, and every word earns its place. This is a model of conciseness.

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 simple lookup tool, the description is complete. The input schema fully documents the two required parameters, an output schema exists to define the return value, and annotations cover safety. The description adds the critical context about when to use it versus list_workspace_members. There is no missing information that would prevent correct use.

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% since both parameters have descriptions. The user_id description is detailed (valid UUID, not email, from list_all_users), while workspace_id's is generic. The tool description restates the parameters but does not add new semantic meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Get one workspace member by workspace_id and user_id.' This specific verb + resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_workspace_members, add_workspace_member, and remove_workspace_member. It also explicitly names list_workspace_members as the alternative for browsing, reinforcing differentiation.

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 provides explicit usage guidance: 'Use this when you already know both IDs; use list_workspace_members to browse the full roster.' This tells the agent exactly when to use this tool and points to the appropriate alternative, making the choice unambiguous.

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