Get Group Member Profile

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 discloses the membership requirement, a key behavioral constraint, but does not mention error handling, return format, or other operational details. For a read operation, this is moderate transparency.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It efficiently states the purpose and the key precondition (bot membership) without unnecessary words.

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?

The description is adequate for a simple get operation with two well-documented parameters and no output schema. It states the purpose and the bot membership precondition, which is essential. Missing details like return format are minor given the tool's simplicity.

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?

The input schema already provides full descriptions for both parameters (LINE User ID and Group ID formats), so the description adds no extra parameter meaning. Per the rubric, with 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3.

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 a member's profile') and the specific scope ('in a LINE group chat'), distinguishing it from the sibling get_room_member_profile. It also adds the membership prerequisite, which gives additional context about the tool's intended use.

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 implies the use case for group chats but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like get_room_member_profile or get_user_profile. The context is clear, but exclusions are not stated, so it falls short of a 5.

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