discord_get_member

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions what data is fetched but lacks behavioral details: no information on permissions required, rate limits, error handling (e.g., if member not found), or response format. For a read operation with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently lists key data fields. It uses a single sentence with no wasted words, making it easy to scan. However, the lack of additional context slightly reduces effectiveness, but it remains appropriately sized.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It covers what data is fetched but misses critical context: parameter details, behavioral traits, error cases, and output structure. For a tool with two required parameters and no structured support, this leaves too many gaps for reliable agent use.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It doesn't explain the parameters guild_id and user_id at all—no details on format (e.g., numeric IDs), sourcing, or constraints. The description adds no meaning beyond the bare schema, failing to address the coverage gap.

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 verb 'Fetch' and resource 'guild member', specifying what data is retrieved (nickname, joined_at, roles, timeout). It distinguishes from siblings like discord_list_members (which lists multiple members) by focusing on a single member lookup. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with discord_get_guild or discord_get_message, which slightly limits differentiation.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing guild_id and user_id), when not to use it (e.g., for bulk operations), or direct comparisons to siblings like discord_list_members. Usage is implied by the action 'Fetch', but no contextual rules are provided.

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