get_chat_member

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'get', implying a read operation, but does not specify response format, required permissions, error behavior for non-members, or rate limits. This leaves significant uncertainty about what happens when the tool is called.

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 that efficiently states the tool's purpose with no redundant words. It is appropriately sized and every word earns its place.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description should provide more context about the result format and edge cases. It only states the purpose but does not explain what 'membership status' looks like (e.g., string, enum, object) or any constraints like requiring the user to already exist in the chat. This is incomplete for reliable invocation and output interpretation.

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?

The schema provides only types and required flags for chat_id and user_id, with no descriptions. The description mentions 'a chat' and 'specific user' but does not elaborate on the identifier formats, how they are resolved, or any relationship between them. With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to compensate by adding meaningful parameter semantics.

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 action 'get', the resource 'membership status', and the scope 'in a chat'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_chat, get_chat_administrators, and ban_chat_member. The specific verb-object pairing makes the purpose unambiguous.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions such as 'use get_chat_administrators to list all admins'. The guidance is only implicit from the tool name, which is insufficient for an AI agent to make a confident selection decision.

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