get_guest

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. For a read operation, 'Get details' implies non-destructive behavior, which is reasonable. However, it doesn't disclose what fields are returned, whether additional permissions are required beyond basic workspace access, or what happens if the guest doesn't exist. The safety profile is implied but not detailed.

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 concise sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a straightforward lookup tool. Could potentially add sibling differentiation, but the brevity itself is a strength.

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 2-parameter get/read operation with 100% schema coverage, the description is mostly adequate. However, it lacks context about the relationship between guest and workspace roles, what information is retrievable for guests, and doesn't clarify behavioral expectations. Given it's a simple read tool, the missing context isn't critical but could be improved.

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%, so both parameters (team_id and guest_id) are already documented in the schema with clear descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides for the parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema handles parameter documentation well.

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 details of a guest user in a workspace' clearly states the verb (Get), resource (guest user), and scope (in a workspace). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_workspace_members and get_authorized_user by specifying 'guest user' specifically. However, it doesn't name alternative sibling tools for comparison.

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 description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like get_workspace_members, get_authorized_user, and invite_guest_to_workspace, a user could benefit from knowing this is specifically for retrieving a single guest's details rather than listing members or managing guests. No exclusions or context provided.

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