get_member_by_name

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 states the operation is a read ('Get') and gives no information about what happens if no member matches, whether it errors, returns null, or whether the result shape is standardized. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant transparency gap.

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 seven-word sentence with no padding, filler, or redundant clause. The key information — action, resource, and lookup criterion — is all present. 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 simple one-parameter getter with no output schema, the description is minimally viable: an agent can infer it should supply a member name and that the tool returns that member. But it lacks any mention of not-found behavior, error handling, or what the returned member object contains. It is adequate but not complete for an agent operating without annotations.

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%, and the schema already documents the 'name' parameter as 'Member name'. The tool description adds only 'by its name', which does not meaningfully extend the schema's parameter documentation. The baseline of 3 is appropriate here.

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 uses a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('member') plus the lookup key ('by name'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_members, which lists all members, and the thread-related tools. It could be slightly more explicit about the uniqueness or exact-match nature of the lookup, but it is not ambiguous.

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 phrase 'by its name' implies the tool should be used when the member's name is already known, rather than when browsing or listing members. However, there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it, no mention of alternatives, and no conditions or exclusions. The usage context is only implied.

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