get_member_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the returned fields, which is genuinely useful. However it omits auth/permission requirements, behavior when the member or guildId is invalid, and any rate-limit or caching notes, leaving meaningful behavioral gaps.

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 sentence with no wasted words; the parenthetical efficiently lists return fields. It is appropriately sized, though it stops short of the routing value a top-tier definition would add.

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 two-parameter read tool with full schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate: it names the resource and the returned fields. With no annotations and no output schema, it should ideally clarify scope versus get_user_info and any failure behavior, so it is only just 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 coverage is 100% and both parameters are documented in the schema (including the DISCORD_GUILD_ID default), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, making baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('member in a server') and enumerates what is returned (roles, join date, voice state, permissions), which confirms server-scoped detail rather than global user data. It does not explicitly name a sibling like get_user_info or list_members to draw the boundary, so it falls short of 5.

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 purpose implies usage (fetch details for one known member), but there is no explicit when-to-use, no prerequisites, and no disambiguation from near neighbors such as get_user_info or list_members. Guidance is only implied.

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