get_staff_member

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes a read operation but does not disclose any behavioral aspects such as idempotency, required permissions, or what happens if the staff member doesn't exist.

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?

Extremely concise: one sentence for purpose, one for usage example. No filler. Front-loaded with the action and key fields.

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 presence of an output schema (so return format is handled elsewhere) and a single required parameter, the description is nearly complete. It lacks error-case behavior but covers the primary usage well.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds no further meaning to the single parameter 'staff_id' beyond what's in the schema. It only mentions 'by id', which is inherent from the parameter name.

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 the tool 'Fetch a single staff member by id' and lists the fields returned (name, role, classrooms, schedule). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_staff which would return multiple staff members.

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?

It provides an explicit use case example: "what's the role and classroom assignment for staff 222?" This gives clear context for when to use it. However, it does not mention when not to use it or alternatives like list_staff.

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