ghost_get_member

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

No annotations are provided. The description indicates a read-only, idempotent retrieval operation. It lacks disclosure of potential errors (e.g., member not found), authentication needs, or return behavior. The minimal description just states the action without additional behavioral context.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two short sentences with no filler. Every word serves a purpose: identifying the action, resource, lookup criteria, and usage constraint.

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 retrieval tool with two fully described parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate but lacks completeness regarding error states, return format, and prerequisites. It doesn't mention that the tool returns a member object or what happens when no member is found.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds semantic value beyond the schema by specifying that 'id OR email' are alternatives (mutually exclusive), which is not captured in the schema's individual property descriptions.

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 'Retrieves' and the resource 'a single member from Ghost CMS' with the specific lookup methods 'by ID or email'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like ghost_get_members (plural, returns list) and ghost_search_members (search-based).

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 provides the key usage guideline 'Provide either id OR email', indicating the parameters are mutually exclusive. However, it does not explicitly contrast with ghost_get_members or ghost_search_members for when to use each, though the names imply distinct purposes.

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