Get member

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds valuable context by listing the return fields (identity, nickname, roles by name, join date, timeout state) and the input flexibility (user ID or name), going beyond the annotation. It does not contradict annotations, though it omits edge-case behavior like not-found errors.

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 two short, information-dense sentences. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose and return fields; the second covers input flexibility. There is no filler or repetition of schema/annotation data.

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?

Without an output schema, the description appropriately summarizes key return fields and input options, giving the agent a good understanding of what to expect. It could improve by noting behavior when the member is not found, but for a simple read-only getter with robust annotations, the description is sufficiently complete.

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%, with both parameters already well-described ('Member name or user ID' and 'Guild name or ID. Omit to use the default guild'). The description's 'Accepts a user ID or a name' merely reinforces the schema and adds no new meaning, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'One member in detail' and enumerates the specific data returned (identity, nickname, roles by name, join date, timeout state), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. This distinguishes it from siblings like list_members (lists all members) and search_members (searches), and from get_role_members (fetches members of a role).

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 conveys when to use the tool: when you need detailed information about a single member. It also states the input format ('Accepts a user ID or a name') which gives clear usage context. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it doesn't fully satisfy the 'explicit when/when-not/alternatives' criterion for a 5.

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