Contract Testing: Admin Get Team User

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description confirms the read-only nature ('Check') but adds no additional behavioral insights such as authentication needs, rate limits, or error handling. It provides marginal value beyond annotations.

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 extremely concise: one sentence for purpose, then 'Toolset: Admin' and a bulleted parameter list. Every piece of information is necessary and front-loaded. No unnecessary words.

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 membership check with full schema description and annotations, the description is mostly complete. It lacks explicit mention of the return value (e.g., boolean), but this is not critical given the tool's straightforward nature. No output schema exists, so some ambiguity remains.

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 the description repeats the schema's parameter descriptions verbatim ('UUID of the team' and 'UUID of the user'). No additional meaning or context is added, so it meets the baseline for adequate parameter documentation.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Check if a specific user is a member of a team (admin).' This uses a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'list_team_users' (which lists all users) and 'get_user' (which retrieves user details).

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 does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives. It states its function but provides no guidance on exclusions or preferred usage contexts. The 'Toolset: Admin' label offers minimal context.

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