user_email_get

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 implies a read operation via 'GET', but does not state authentication requirements, whether it returns the authenticated user's email or a specified user's email, or any rate limits or side effects. The 'user_id' parameter description ('admin acts on behalf of this user') hints at an admin use case, but the tool description itself does not elaborate on this behavior.

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 short and front-loads the HTTP method and path. However, it includes tag and spec lines ('Тег: Пользователи', 'Спека: user') that add noise without helping an agent decide to invoke the tool. It is efficiently sized but not optimally structured for tool selection.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should explain what the tool returns (e.g., the user's email address), but it does not. It also omits any mention of authentication context or how the result should be interpreted, leaving significant gaps for an agent to fill. The presence of limit/offset parameters suggests a list-like response, but the description does not address pagination or return format.

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%: limit, offset, and user_id all have schema-level descriptions. The tool description adds no parameter information beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states 'GET /user/email' and 'Получить email пользователя' (Get user email), which clearly conveys the verb (get) and resource (user email). However, it does not distinguish this GET endpoint from siblings like user_email_post, user_email_put, or user_email_delete, leaving the agent to infer that this one is read-only based on the HTTP method.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as user_email_post or user_email_verify_post. The description only provides the raw endpoint and category tags ('Тег: Пользователи', 'Спека: user'), offering no context about when this retrieval is appropriate.

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