Get User

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

The description adds context beyond the annotations by mentioning default return fields and the 'me' behavior. However, it states default fields as 'gid, name, and email' while the schema's opt_fields description says default fields are 'gid, resource_type, name', creating an inconsistency that could mislead the agent.

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 concise (three sentences), front-loaded with the primary purpose, and contains no redundant information. Every sentence contributes to understanding usage.

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 get-by-identifier tool, the description covers the key aspects: how to specify the user, what is returned by default, and the alternative tool for finding GIDs. The sibling tool reference adds necessary context, making the description complete enough for agent use.

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 description does not need to add much. It reiterates the acceptable values for user_gid (GID, email, 'me') and adds a brief note about 'me' meaning the current user, but this adds minimal value beyond the schema.

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's purpose: to get details for an Asana user by GID, email, or 'me'. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tool asana_get_users_for_workspace by mentioning that the latter is for finding GIDs by name or email.

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?

Provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool and when to use an alternative. It explains that 'me' identifies the current token's user and directs users to asana_get_users_for_workspace for finding GIDs by name or email.

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