Get one end user's detail: basic profile (name, contact email/phone, city, timezone) + their spaces.
Never any conversation content. Carries a `console_url` to the user's detail page.| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| uid | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It clearly states what is included (profile fields, spaces, console_url) and what is never included ('Never any conversation content'), which is a strong privacy guarantee. It stops short of addressing error handling or access control, but this is sufficient for a simple get operation.
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, front-loaded with the main action, and every sentence adds value: the first identifies the resource and fields, the second adds exclusions and a return value detail. No wasted 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?
For a simple one-parameter get tool, the description covers the scope of data returned, privacy constraints, and a notable output field (console_url). The output schema exists to handle return values, so the description is adequately complete for an agent to select and invoke correctly.
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 schema provides no description for the single required parameter 'uid', and the description doesn't explicitly define it beyond the context of getting 'end user's detail'. Since 'uid' is a self-explanatory acronym, the description partially compensates, but it doesn't specify format, source, or how to obtain it.
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 starts with 'Get one end user's detail' which is a specific verb+resource pair, and enumerates the exact fields returned (name, contact email/phone, city, timezone) plus their spaces. This distinguishes it from sibling list_end_users, which retrieves multiple users, and from other get_* tools.
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 phrase 'one end user' implies this is for a single user detail, contrasting with list_end_users for multiple users. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, so it's clear but not as directive as naming the alternate tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Tools are mostly distinct by domain and action. A few pairs like add_knowledge_file vs add_knowledge_text or build_knowledge_index vs patch_knowledge_index could cause confusion, but descriptions clearly differentiate them.
The vast majority follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (create_*, list_*, get_*, update_*). A few outliers like tenant_info, usage_stats, and page_context_stats are noun-first, deviating slightly from the otherwise uniform scheme.
With 50 tools, this is a very large surface that exceeds typical well-scoped server sizes. Even for a broad platform management API, the sheer number makes it heavy and potentially overwhelming, matching the '50+' extreme mismatch category.
The server covers creation, reading, updating, and listing for most resources but lacks any delete operations (no delete_agent, delete_knowledge_base, delete_skill, delete_share, delete_storyline, delete_page_context). This is a significant gap in lifecycle coverage that will force agents to work around missing functionality.