Get user json

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is carried by structured data. The description adds only that the lookup is by id and returns a single instance; it says nothing about what the user record contains, whether it is the admin-view or self-view payload, or what happens when the id does not exist.

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 padding, so nothing is wasted, but it is under-specified rather than efficient. There is no front-loaded distinction or constraint to orient the agent.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description should describe the returned user shape, but it does not. Combined with zero parameter coverage on a four-parameter tool and no differentiation from three sibling user-lookup tools, the definition leaves the agent guessing on both invocation and interpretation.

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 four parameters are declared, yet three (form, params, json_body) are undocumented in both schema and description. The phrase "by id" weakly signals that user_id is the meaningful input, but the purpose of the other three remains entirely opaque, which is a real risk given additionalProperties is false.

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?

"Get one instance user by id" names a verb (get) and resource (user) with a lookup key, which is better than a tautology. However, siblings include vaultwarden_get_user, vaultwarden_get_user_by_mail_json, and vaultwarden_get_users_json, and nothing in the description explains what the "_json" variant does differently or why an agent would pick it over the plain get_user.

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 when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing is stated. An agent facing three near-identical user-lookup tools has no textual basis for choosing among them, and there is no mention of prerequisites or admin authorization needs.

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