Get Project Member

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe read with open-ended return shape. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond 'single membership by id' (which is mostly parameter usage). No additional side effects, error cases, or return constraints are disclosed, so a score of 3 is appropriate.

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, clear sentence ('Get a single membership by id.') with zero wasted words. It is front-loaded and immediately actionable.

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 single-get tool with full schema coverage, read-only annotations, and no output schema, the description is complete. It clearly identifies the tool's purpose and provides enough context alongside the structured fields.

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%: 'id' is described as 'Resource id' and 'verbosity' has a detailed explanation of its enum values and default. The description itself adds no new parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('single membership by id'), making the operation unambiguous. It clearly distinguishes this from membership_list (plural), membership_create/update/delete, and other membership-related tools.

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 implies usage: use this when you have a membership id and need exactly one membership. It does not explicitly name alternative tools (e.g., membership_list for all memberships), but the 'by id' phrasing gives clear context and no exclusions are needed given the simplicity.

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