Get Team Member

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description contributes the TEAM_DB_PATH environment requirement, which is real context not present in the structured fields, but says nothing about error behavior, alias resolution, or scoping effects of workspace_id.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, with no filler. The prerequisite sentence is terse but earns its place; it could be slightly more explicit about how TEAM_DB_PATH is supplied.

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?

An output schema exists and annotations are rich, so the description needn't explain returns or safety. However, for a lookup tool that can fail on unknown or aliased authors, the description leaves the resolution/not-found behavior entirely unstated, which is a meaningful gap even at this complexity level.

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% and both parameters are documented in the schema, including the careful warning about workspace_id format. The description adds no syntax, format, or matching semantics (e.g. exact vs alias matching on author) beyond the schema, so baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource (get details about a specific team member), which is clearly a single-record lookup. It doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from near-siblings like team_resolve_author or team_list_members, so an agent must infer the boundary from the name alone.

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 only guidance is the prerequisite 'Requires TEAM_DB_PATH.' There is no statement of when to use this versus team_list_members, team_resolve_author, or team_get_entry_by_id, and no mention of what happens if the author is unknown or ambiguous.

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