editor_get_member

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is already covered; the description adds genuinely new behavior: private members are readable (an access-scope expansion beyond what annotations convey) and unknown member names return a list of valid members rather than a bare failure. It does not describe the returned value shape, but an output schema exists to cover that.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the example and the error fallback each carrying distinct information. No filler or repetition.

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 3-parameter read tool with an output schema and a readOnly annotation, the description covers addressing, access scope, and failure behavior. A brief pointer to the set/read counterpart would make it fully self-sufficient, but nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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% and both the dotted-path format and the scriptType override are already documented in the schema with the same example. The description restates the dotted-path idea and hints at script targeting, adding little syntax or edge-case meaning beyond the structured fields.

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?

States a specific verb ("Reads") and resource ("a field or property of an actor, or of one of its scripts") plus the addressing mechanism (dotted path with example "Clock.Steps"). The read framing cleanly separates it from the sibling editor_set_member without either schema being opened.

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 note "Unknown names list the members that exist" implies an exploratory use case, and the script-scoped read is implied by the description, but there is no explicit statement of when to use this versus editor_actor_details or editor_set_member. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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