user_detail

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the disclosure burden. The '[READ]' prefix and mention of returning details indicate a non-mutating lookup. However, it does not discuss error behavior, permissions, or edge cases, leaving some behavioral transparency gap.

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 compact and front-loaded: a clear one-line purpose followed by a concise Args list. Every sentence adds value, with no repetition or fluff.

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 read tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the return value sufficiently (enabled state, required actions, attributes) and parameter sources. It lacks some edge-case guidance (e.g., invalid user_id), but overall is complete enough for the tool's complexity.

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 fully compensates by explaining user_id as 'Keycloak UUID / authentik pk, from list_users' and target as 'IdP target name from config; omit for the default'. This adds meaning beyond the bare parameter names.

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 reads 'one user's full detail' with specific content (enabled state, required actions, attributes). It uses the verb 'READ' and specifies the resource, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_users or user_sessions.

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 gives clear context: user_id should come from list_users, and target is optional and defaults to default IdP. It implies when to use this tool (for a single user's full details) but does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives like user_credentials or user_sessions.

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