developer_space_member_get

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: it reveals that the return contains PII (email, userName), and that an unknown aaid results in HTTP 400. This is valuable transparency not covered by annotations. No contradiction.

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 two sentences followed by a spec link. It is efficiently front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, and the second adds return format and an error condition. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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 get tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers the return fields (including PII) and an error case. It provides a link to the full spec. It could be improved by noting the default developerId behavior, but overall it is complete enough for correct invocation.

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 50% (only aaid has a description). The description does not add any parameter details beyond what the schema provides. It merely mentions aaid without elaborating on format or usage. The developerId parameter is not explained anywhere, and the description fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 clearly states 'Get one developer-space team member by Atlassian account id (aaid).' It specifies the verb (get), resource (developer-space team member), and identifier (aaid). Among siblings, there are distinct tools for adding, removing, listing, and updating members, making this tool easily distinguishable.

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 implicitly suggests use when you have a specific aaid but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like developer_space_members_list. The only usage hint is the error condition for unknown aaid. No when-not-to-use or alternatives are mentioned.

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