get_team_user

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

The description indicates a read-only operation without side effects, which is accurate. However, it does not disclose authentication requirements, error handling (e.g., missing user), or any behavioral constraints. Since no annotations exist, the description carries the burden but provides only basic transparency.

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 superfluous words. Every word contributes to the purpose.

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 simplicity of the tool (no output schema, no nested objects), the description is minimally complete but lacks details on what 'details' are returned. The agent might need to infer from sibling tools or documentation.

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 both parameters described (teamId: 'Team UUID', userId: 'User UUID'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Get details of a specific team member' clearly states the action (get) and resource (team member), distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_team_users (which returns multiple) and add/remove/update operations.

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 for retrieving a single team member's details but does not explicitly state when to use this over list_team_users or other alternatives. No exclusion criteria or prerequisites are provided.

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