guests_get

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Get details,' implying a read operation, but does not disclose what response format to expect, whether special permissions are needed, or behavior when the guest is not found. This is a notable gap even for a simple get.

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, well-structured sentence with no redundant words. It immediately states the action and resource, making it easy to parse and act on.

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 get with two well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate but not rich. It does not describe return values, error cases, or relationship to other guest operations. Given the low complexity, this is a minimum viable description but leaves room for improvement.

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%, so the parameters are already documented. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond 'specific guest' and 'workspace,' which matches the parameter descriptions. Baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema handles parameter semantics.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('details about a specific guest'), scoped to a workspace. It clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling guest-management tools like guests_invite, guests_update, and guests_remove.

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 explicit guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It is implied that one uses it when needing details about a single guest, but there is no mention of exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative tools like lists or users_list. This falls short of clear usage direction.

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