get_team_membership

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. The description only states the tool retrieves a membership by ID, but it does not disclose whether this is a read-only operation, what happens on failure, or any authentication requirements. This leaves the agent guessing about safety and side effects.

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 sentence with zero wasted words. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, making the purpose immediately clear.

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 that there is an output schema (not shown), the description does not need to explain return values. The tool is simple with only 2 required parameters. However, with no annotations and sparse description, the agent lacks guidance on error conditions or prerequisites, which holds it back from a higher score.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add any additional semantics to the parameters beyond what the schema already provides. Both parameters are simple integer IDs with basic descriptions, and the description offers no further context.

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 verb 'Get' and resource 'team membership' clearly indicate a retrieval operation. The description is straightforward and distinguishes from siblings like create_team_membership, update_team_membership, delete_team_membership, and list_team_members by specifying lookup by ID.

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 that the tool requires both team_id and membership_id to retrieve a specific membership. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like list_team_members (for listing) or when the tool might fail (e.g., if the membership does not exist).

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