Api users object retrieve

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

The annotations explicitly set readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, yet the description claims the endpoint allows users to be 'edited', implying a write capability the annotations deny. This direct inconsistency is serious for an agent deciding whether it is safe to call.

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?

It is a single short sentence with no waste, but that brevity comes at the cost of substance rather than through efficient front-loading. Short but under-specified.

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?

With no output schema, the description should explain what a retrieved user object contains and how the identifier is formed. It says nothing about the return shape, permissions, or error behavior, leaving a retrieve endpoint with an undocumented id parameter substantially underspecified.

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% and the sole parameter 'id' is undocumented in both the schema and the description. The description adds no information about whether the id is a UUID, integer, or what format it takes.

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 names the resource (users) but pairs it with a vague dual purpose ('viewed or edited'), which muddles the specific verb. It restates the title rather than sharply distinguishing this retrieve endpoint from its many siblings like ciso_assistant_api_users_retrieve and ciso_assistant_api_users_list.

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 object-retrieve endpoint versus the sibling retrieve/list endpoints for users. A reader cannot infer from the text which one to pick or what preconditions apply.

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