sigma_get_member

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the detail that homeFolderId is included in the response, but it does not disclose additional behavioral aspects such as error conditions, pagination, or required permissions. With annotations present, the description provides some extra value but not rich context.

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, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the key verb and resource. It contains no redundant or filler content.

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?

The tool is simple with one parameter and has an output schema, so the description does not need to explain return values. The description is sufficient to convey the basic operation, and the annotations cover safety. It is slightly limited in providing broader context, but given the tool's simplicity and the presence of structured metadata, it is nearly complete.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the single parameter member_id. The description does not explicitly explain the parameter, its purpose, or how to obtain it. The parameter name is self-explanatory, but the description provides no additional semantic value beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the action (get) and the resource (member details), with a specific detail (including homeFolderId). It differentiates from sibling tools like sigma_list_members by using 'get' for a single member versus 'list' for all 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 implies usage: to retrieve a specific member's details. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like sigma_list_members or sigma_get_current_user, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions.

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