lokalise_get_team_user

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 clearly states this is a read operation and describes the return value ('Complete user profile with all team permissions...'). It does not mention authentication requirements or potential error conditions, which would enhance 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 very concise: three sentences that effectively front-load purpose, required parameters, and use cases, followed by what is returned. No redundant information.

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 (2 params, no output schema), the description covers the essentials: purpose, required inputs, intended uses, and return value. It could be improved by mentioning access control or error scenarios, but overall it is fairly complete.

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 has 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description reiterates the required parameters ('teamId, userId') but adds no additional meaning, format hints, or constraints beyond what the schema already provides.

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 ('Gets detailed information') and the resource ('a specific user in a team'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'lokalise_get_contributor' or 'lokalise_get_usergroup' by specifying it is for team users.

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 explicit use cases: 'verify user permissions, check role assignments, or investigate access issues.' However, it does not mention when not to use this tool or provide alternatives, leaving room for improvement.

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