get_member_works

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

The readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations already cover the safety profile, and the description adds no contradictions. It adds minimal behavioral context beyond the annotations (e.g., no mention of pagination, sorting, or response format), so the description adds some but not rich 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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It efficiently conveys the core purpose without waste, earning a high score for conciseness.

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?

With no output schema, the description should explain what the tool returns and how parameters like cursor/offset/rows control pagination. It provides none of this, leaving the agent to guess about return structure and pagination behavior. The description is too skeletal for a tool with this complexity.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It only identifies 'member_id' as the key input, but ignores the other 8 parameters (raw, rows, sort, order, query, cursor, filter, offset) and their semantics. This is a significant gap for a tool with 9 parameters.

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 'List works published by a given member id', which is a specific verb+resource+scope. It distinguishes from siblings like search_works (broad search), get_work (single work), and get_journal_works/get_funder_works (other entity-scoped lists) by specifying member 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 wording implies use when you have a member id and need their published works, but it provides no explicit guidance on alternatives or exclusions. No mention of when to prefer this over search_works or other list tools.

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