get_auth_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 of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Retrieves details') but doesn't describe what 'details' include, error handling (e.g., for invalid IDs), permissions required, or rate limits. For a read operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral aspects unspecified.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action and resource. Every word contributes meaning without redundancy, making it easy to parse quickly. It avoids unnecessary elaboration while covering the essential purpose.

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 operation) and high schema coverage, the description is adequate for basic use. However, without annotations or an output schema, it lacks details on return values, error cases, and security context. It meets minimum viability but has clear gaps in behavioral transparency.

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%, with the parameter 'user_id' fully documented in the schema as a UUID. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by reiterating 'by their ID', but doesn't provide additional context like ID format examples or sourcing guidance. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb ('Retrieves') and resource ('details for a specific user from auth.users'), making the purpose unambiguous. It specifies the data source ('auth.users') and key identifier ('by their ID'), which helps distinguish it from generic user-fetching tools. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling 'list_auth_users', which is a minor gap.

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 usage context by specifying 'by their ID', suggesting this tool is for fetching a single known user rather than listing multiple users. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus 'list_auth_users' or mention prerequisites like authentication requirements. The guidance is functional but lacks explicit alternatives or exclusions.

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