learningsuite_get_team_member

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The verb 'Get' clearly indicates a non-mutating read operation, but the description does not disclose return format, error behavior, or which fields are included. It is adequate but minimal.

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 with no wasted words. It immediately conveys the action and scope, making it easy for an agent to quickly parse.

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 get-by-ID tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It clearly identifies the input and action. The only slight gap is not stating that the response returns the team member object, but this is implied by the tool's name and behavior.

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 input schema already documents the single 'userId' parameter with 100% coverage. The description's 'by ID' reinforces the parameter's purpose but adds little beyond the schema's 'User ID' description. 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 clearly states the tool's function: retrieving a single team member by ID. The phrase 'by ID' distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'get_team_member_by_email' and 'list_team_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?

Usage is implied: use this tool when you have a team member's ID and need the team member record. However, it does not explicitly compare with alternatives like 'get_team_member_by_email' or 'get_member', providing no exclusionary guidance.

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