gsa_memb_num_elem

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. 'Return' implies a read-only operation, but it does not state permissions required, error behavior for invalid member IDs, or whether any side effects occur. Only the bare purpose is disclosed.

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, waste-free sentence that front-loads the operation. It is appropriately sized for a simple getter, though the extreme brevity leaves it feeling under-specified.

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 tool's simplicity (one integer parameter) and the presence of an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it omits any parameter context or usage guidance, leaving the agent to infer how to supply member_id correctly.

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 input schema has one parameter (member_id) with 0% description coverage, so the schema provides no semantic details. The description mentions 'for member' but adds no meaning about what a member_id represents, its valid range, or where to obtain it.

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 states a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('number of elements for member'), making the tool's core function clear. It does not distinguish this count operation from similar-looking siblings like gsa_memb_elem_num or gsa_elem_memb_num, which likely return lists or mappings rather than a count.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as gsa_memb_elem_num or gsa_elem_memb_num. The description only states what it returns, not the context or conditions for selecting it.

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