github_teams_get_member_legacy

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

With no annotations present, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It entirely fails to mention traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling (e.g., what happens if the member is not found), or whether this is a read-only operation.

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?

At only five words, the description is extremely concise, but conciseness here sacrifices informativeness. The single sentence fails to convey essential details, making it under-specification rather than efficient communication.

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?

Given the lack of an output schema, annotations, and the presence of many sibling tools with overlapping functionality, the description is severely deficient. It does not explain the return value, legacy behavior nuances, or how to properly invoke the tool.

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?

Although schema description coverage is 100%, the descriptions are mere parameter name repetitions ('team_id', 'username'). The tool description adds no additional context about the expected format, scope, or source of these values, offering minimal value beyond the schema.

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 'Get team member (Legacy)' is essentially a tautological restatement of the tool name, lacking specificity. It does not clarify what is retrieved (e.g., membership status, role, profile) or how it differs from sibling tools like get_membership_for_user_in_org or get_membership_for_user_legacy.

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?

No indications are provided about when to use this tool versus its non-legacy or alternative counterparts. The 'Legacy' label hints at deprecation, but no explanation or guidance is given for appropriate usage.

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