Api users retrieve

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the description's added value is the disclosure that unauthorized related fields are masked — a genuine behavioral trait an agent needs when interpreting partial results. Beyond that one clause it says nothing about 404 behavior, permission requirements, or response shape.

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?

A single short sentence with no filler, and the most decision-relevant fact (masking) is front-loaded. It is efficient, though its brevity comes at the cost of substance elsewhere.

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 one-parameter read-only lookup with no output schema, the description covers the notable surprise (masked fields) but leaves the resource identity implicit and says nothing about what happens when the id does not exist or is not permitted. Adequate as a minimum, not self-sufficient.

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% — the single required 'id' parameter is documented nowhere. The description makes no reference to the identifier at all (no format, no ID type, no indication that it is the user's PK/UUID), so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 says 'Return a single object' but never names the resource — the fact that it returns a *user* is only inferable from the tool name and the users_* sibling family. The verb is implied rather than stated, and nothing distinguishes it from siblings like ciso_assistant_api_users_object_retrieve or 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 when-to-use guidance at all: no mention of when to pick this over ciso_assistant_api_users_list, ciso_assistant_api_users_object_retrieve, or ciso_assistant_api_iam_current_user_retrieve. No prerequisites (e.g. required permission level) are stated.

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