threads_get_member

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds valuable context by specifying the returned fields and the 404-shaped error when the user is not a member, though it does not mention the with_member parameter's effect on the response.

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 well-structured with clear sections (Purpose, When to use, Returns) and uses minimal words. Every sentence adds value, including the error behavior, without unnecessary filler.

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 read-only tool with complete schema annotations, an output schema, and a description covering purpose, usage, return fields, and error cases, the description is fully complete. Nothing important is missing.

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% with descriptions for all parameters ('User to query', 'Thread to look up', 'Include the underlying guild member object'). The description reinforces the overall purpose but does not add meaning beyond the schema for individual parameters, so the 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Look up') with a clear resource ('one user's thread-membership record') and scope ('join timestamp, flags'). This distinguishes it from siblings like threads_join, threads_leave, and threads_list_members.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Verify a user is in a thread before performing thread-only actions.' It provides clear context but does not name alternatives or exclusions, so it stops short of a full 5.

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