get_staff_member

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

With no annotations, the description adds value by disclosing the limited admin access, the GET method, and the included sensitive fields (login email, location tracking). It does not cover rate limits or side effects, but it provides sufficient behavioral context for a read operation.

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 concise (three sentences), front-loaded with the primary purpose, and every sentence provides distinct information (sensitive fields, admin tier, endpoint mapping). No redundancy.

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 the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is nearly complete. It could mention what fields are returned, but without an output schema, the given detail is adequate.

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 single parameter 'uuid' is described as 'by UUID' and linked to the endpoint path (GET /staff/{uuid}.json), adding meaning beyond the schema's simple string type. The confusing phrase 'Required on create: first, last by UUID' slightly detracts but does not undermine the parameter's semantic clarity.

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 retrieves a single employee/technician record, includes the specific sensitive fields (login email, location tracking), and provides the HTTP endpoint mapping. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_client.

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 explains that this is an admin-tier tool, not for everyday office-ops, implying when to use it. It also references required fields for create, but it lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tools.

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