x_user_get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is well covered. The description adds the 'public' scope and input format, but does not disclose pagination behavior, rate limits, or how errors are returned.

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?

Two concise sentences with no filler. The action is front-loaded ('Read...'), and the input format note is directly useful. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

The description is compact but covers the core operation, the supported resource types, and the input format. An output schema exists, so return value details are not required here. It could improve by explaining cursor pagination, but the essentials for a correct call are present.

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 0%, so the description needs to compensate. It adds value by explaining the 'user' parameter as accepting '@handle/profile URL' and paraphrases the view enum. However, limit, cursor, and detail parameters receive no explanation beyond what the schema already shows.

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 a clear verb and resource: 'Read a public profile or a page of posts...' and enumerates the views, making the tool's function apparent. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like x_post_get or x_collection_get, but the user-focused scope implies differentiation.

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 implies when to use the tool: when reading public user data such as profile, posts, replies, media, articles, followers, or following. However, it does not provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance or mention any alternative sibling tools.

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