get_group_member

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, error conditions (e.g., if member doesn't exist), or the format of the returned data. The description only adds the 'Qiita Team only' constraint, leaving significant gaps in behavioral context.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose and includes a key constraint. There is no wasted verbiage, and it's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool with two parameters.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral aspects (e.g., read-only nature, error handling), output format, and usage nuances. For a tool that retrieves specific data, more context is needed to guide the agent effectively, especially without structured support from annotations or output schema.

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%, with both parameters ('url_name' and 'user_id') documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond what the schema provides—it doesn't explain what 'url_name' or 'user_id' represent in context or provide examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.

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 action ('Get') and resource ('specific member of a group'), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes from sibling 'list_group_members' by specifying retrieval of a single member rather than listing all. However, it doesn't explicitly mention what 'member' refers to (e.g., user membership details).

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 includes a constraint ('Qiita Team only'), which provides some usage context. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_group_members' or 'get_user', nor does it mention prerequisites like authentication or group access permissions. The guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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