github_teams_get_membership_for_user_legacy

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

With no annotations, the description is the sole source of behavioral info. It only states 'Get team membership for a user (Legacy)' without disclosing deprecation status, authorization needs, or what happens if the user is not a member.

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 extremely concise (one phrase) and front-loaded with the key purpose. It could be improved with a more structured format, but it effectively communicates the core action.

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?

Missing critical context: no output schema or description of return values, no explanation of 'legacy' implications, and no mention of whether the endpoint is deprecated or what its limitations are.

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% but parameter descriptions are trivial (just the parameter names). The tool description adds no additional semantics beyond the schema. Baseline is 3 for high coverage, and no extra value is provided.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'team membership for a user', and includes '(Legacy)' to distinguish it from the non-legacy version. However, it does not clarify what 'legacy' entails or how it differs.

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 guidance on when to use this legacy tool versus the non-legacy alternative (e.g., github_teams_get_membership_for_user_in_org). It also lacks context on prerequisites or specific scenarios for using this endpoint.

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