get_project_team_member

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It correctly implies a read-only operation via the verb 'Get', but does not mention permissions, side effects (none), or any constraints. It is minimally transparent but not misleading, earning a mid-range score.

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 sentence of 6 words, extremely concise and front-loaded. While it could include more context without becoming verbose, it efficiently states the core operation, making it highly scannable. The length is appropriate for a simple get tool.

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 low complexity (two required string parameters, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema, the description is adequate but minimal. It omits details like return value structure (though output schema covers it), permissions, and differentiation from sibling tools, making it somewhat incomplete for a fully informed selection.

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 should compensate by explaining parameters. It does not describe 'project_id' or 'user_id' beyond their names, which are somewhat self-explanatory but insufficient for an AI agent to know expected formats or sources. The description adds no semantic value over the schema.

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 a specific team member on a project' clearly states the verb and resource, and implies a single entity retrieval, distinguishing it from siblings like 'get_project_team' which returns a list. However, it does not explicitly mention the required identifiers (project_id, user_id) as part of the purpose, preventing a perfect score.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'get_project_team' (for listing) or 'update_project_team_member' (for modifications). The description lacks explicit context, exclusions, or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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