gsa_memb_elem_num

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it says nothing about whether this is a pure read, what happens if the index is out of range, or whether ids can be missing. For a lookup tool in a solver API, that leaves error behavior entirely undisclosed.

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?

A single front-loaded clause with no waste, but it is a sentence fragment rather than a coherent statement, and its brevity comes at the cost of substance rather than from disciplined editing.

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?

The output schema exists so return values needn't be described, but with no annotations and 0% schema coverage the description leaves an agent without enough context to invoke this confidently alongside its many siblings.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, but 'member+index' merely restates the two parameter names. It does not explain what index counts (element position within the member? ordering?) or the valid range.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: returns the element id for a given member and index. However, it never distinguishes itself from near-identical siblings such as gsa_memb_num_elem and gsa_elem_memb_num, whose names imply inverse or counting relationships, leaving the agent to guess which mapping it wants.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the closely related sibling tools. The agent gets no help deciding when this lookup is appropriate versus the reverse mappings.

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