getChatMember

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. It discloses the admin prerequisite and the success return type ('Returns a ChatMember object on success'), which are important beyond the schema. It does not cover failure behavior, but for a read operation this is adequate.

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?

Two sentences with no redundant words. The purpose is front-loaded, and the admin caveat and return type each add valuable information without clutter.

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 two-parameter read method, the description covers the purpose, the main constraint (admin requirement), and the return type. Explicit differentiation from getChatAdministrators would improve it, but the singular 'a member' makes the tool's scope reasonably clear.

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 chat_id and user_id fully documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, aligning with the baseline score.

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 states 'Get information about a member of a chat,' identifying a specific verb and resource. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like getChatAdministrators (plural administrators) and getChatMemberCount (count).

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?

It provides a key constraint: 'only guaranteed to work for other users if the bot is an administrator in the chat,' which guides expected behavior. However, it does not explicitly compare with sibling tools or state when to prefer alternatives, so usage guidance is mostly implied.

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