get-person

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

No annotations provided; description indicates a read-only retrieval operation. Does not mention safety, authorization, or side effects, which is acceptable for a simple fetch tool but leaves some uncertainty.

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?

Single, front-loaded sentence that communicates purpose and return data without any wasted words. Excellent conciseness.

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?

With full schema coverage and a clear description of return fields, the tool context is mostly complete. Could mention the optional format parameter, but the description still provides adequate context for calling the tool.

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 covers all parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds no additional meaning about the parameters themselves (e.g., format options, ID format). Baseline 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?

Clearly specifies the action ('Get comprehensive details'), the resource ('specific team member'), and the scope of data returned ('role, department, skills, contact information, employment details'). Distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list-people (which lists all) and other get tools.

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?

States the tool is 'Essential for team management and resource allocation', implying when it is appropriate. Does not explicitly exclude other tools, but the focus on a single person by ID is clear enough for correct selection.

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