edubase_get_user_name

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, which convey the safe and non-mutating nature. The description adds no extra behavioral context (e.g., what happens if user is not found, output format). Since annotations are sufficient, the description's lack of additional detail is acceptable but not improved.

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 a single short sentence, which is concise but not wasteful. It could be slightly more informative without becoming verbose, so it earns a 4 for efficiency.

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 (one parameter, read-only, likely returns a name string), the description is largely adequate. However, it does not differentiate from other user getters (like edubase_get_user) nor mention that an output schema exists. Context signals indicate an output schema is present, but the description does not hint at the return structure. Still, for a simple name retrieval, this is minimally viable.

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 one parameter 'user' with description 'user identification string'. Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains it. The description does not elaborate on acceptable formats (e.g., email vs. ID) or provide any further guidance 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 'Get user's name.' clearly states the verb (get) and the specific resource (user's name). It distinguishes from siblings like edubase_get_user which presumably returns full user info. The tool name reinforces this.

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?

No usage guidelines are provided. The description does not specify when to use this tool versus other user-related tools such as edubase_get_user or edubase_get_user_me. No context on prerequisites or limitations is given.

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