portkey-admin-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it's a retrieval operation but doesn't mention whether it requires authentication, rate limits, error handling (e.g., for invalid IDs), or what 'detailed information' includes (e.g., fields returned). This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's behavior beyond basic purpose.

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 ('Retrieve detailed information about a specific user') and adds necessary qualification ('by their ID'). There is no wasted wording, and it's appropriately sized for a simple lookup tool.

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 tool's simplicity (1 parameter, 100% schema coverage) but lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like authentication needs or response format, which are critical for an agent to use it correctly. The description alone is insufficient for a mutation-free but potentially complex retrieval operation.

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%, so the schema already fully documents the 'user_id' parameter. The description adds no additional semantic context about the parameter (e.g., format examples, where to find IDs, or validation rules). This meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description doesn't enhance understanding.

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 verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('detailed information about a specific user'), making the purpose explicit. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_all_users' by specifying retrieval by ID rather than listing. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'get_user_stats' or 'get_users_analytics', which prevents a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_all_users' for bulk retrieval or 'get_user_stats' for statistical data. It mentions 'by their ID' which implies a prerequisite but doesn't explain how to obtain IDs or when this method is preferred over other user-related tools.

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