member_get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden; "inspect" implies a read-only lookup but readOnlyHint-equivalent behavior is never stated. It adds some useful sequencing context (call after a search/list) but says nothing about error behavior for unknown members or rate limits. With no output schema and no annotations, 3 reflects a minimal but not rich disclosure.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that puts the usage trigger first and the identifier forms second, with no filler. Every clause earns its place.

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 two-parameter read lookup with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose, timing, and accepted identifiers well enough to call correctly. The remaining gap is behavioral (error handling for unknown members), which keeps it from a 5.

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 both parameters are already documented. The description's "by id, username, or me" merely restates the memberId schema description and says nothing about the fields parameter, which the schema fully covers. Baseline 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?

States a specific verb ("inspect a Trello member profile") and resource, and names the accepted identifiers (id, username, me). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like search_members, board_members, and member_boards, which retrieve collections rather than a single profile.

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?

Explicitly says to use it "after member search or board member listing" and for "assignment or auditing," which gives concrete trigger context and implies the alternatives that produce the identifiers. It stops short of stating when not to use it, so it falls just below the top score.

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