brilliant-directories-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get a single member/user' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, what happens if the user doesn't exist (e.g., error handling), or the format of the returned data. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in describing its behavior and constraints.

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 with just four words: 'Get a single member/user'. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, leaving no wasted words. This efficiency makes it easy to parse, though it sacrifices detail for brevity. Every word earns its place by conveying the essential purpose without redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (simple retrieval), lack of annotations, no output schema, and low schema description coverage (0%), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'member/user' means in this context, what data is returned, or any error conditions. For a tool that likely interacts with user data, more context is needed to use it effectively, especially with many sibling tools that could cause confusion.

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?

The input schema has one parameter 'user_id' with 0% description coverage, so the schema provides no semantic context. The description doesn't mention parameters at all, failing to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation. However, with only one parameter, the baseline is higher (around 4 for 0 params, but adjusted to 3 here since there is one undocumented param). The description adds no value beyond the schema, but the simplicity of a single ID parameter keeps it from being lower.

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 'Get a single member/user' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('member/user'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'getUserFields', 'getUserMeta', or 'searchUsers', which all retrieve user-related data but with different scopes or filters. The description is adequate but lacks specificity about what distinguishes this particular user retrieval operation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to choose 'getUser' over 'searchUsers' (for multiple users), 'getUserFields' (for user metadata), or 'listUsers' (for all users). There's no indication of prerequisites, such as needing a user ID, or contextual factors like permissions required. This leaves the agent with insufficient information to make an informed choice among similar tools.

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