clickup_find_member_by_name

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the key outcome: it returns the member object or null if not found, which tells the agent to handle a miss explicitly. It says nothing about auth requirements, ambiguous matches when a name is shared by multiple members, or whether email lookup is exact-match.

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, zero waste, with the lookup semantics front-loaded and the return contract immediately after. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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 2-parameter read tool with full schema documentation and no output schema, the description covers purpose and the null-return contract adequately. It could add a note on multiple-match behavior or default workspace resolution, but no essential calling information 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%, including the note that workspace_id is only needed with multiple workspaces, so the schema already does this work. The description only echoes the name_or_email semantics and adds nothing beyond it; 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 a member in the ClickUp workspace') plus the lookup key ('by name or email'), so the agent knows exactly what the tool retrieves. It does not explicitly name the sibling it differs from (e.g. clickup_get_workspace_members for listing all members), so it falls short of a 5.

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 single-lookup framing implies when to use it (you already know a name or email), but it never states when to prefer clickup_get_workspace_members or clickup_resolve_assignees instead. Usage must be inferred from the phrasing rather than read directly.

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