glpi_get_user_context

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

With no annotations at all, the description does not state how it handles read operations, side effects, permissions, or data scope. The phrase 'including used and managed items' suggests it can query user-managed assets, but this is not detailed enough.

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?

Single direct sentence, no redundant parts, and clearly front-loaded with an action ('Retorna...').

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?

There is no return-value schema, no additional details on how the context is formed, no mention of permissions or errors, and the 'context' object itself is under-specified.

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 id parameter is described as 'user ID' (ID do usuário) and the schema covers 100%. The description adds a little beyond the field name, but not much and does not specify e.g. whether it is a numeric ID or a user key.

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 "returns the context of a user, including used and managed items." It clearly identifies the resource as a user context, but is vague about what a 'context' comprises, and does not distinguish whether it is a general user retrieval, inventory vs. tickets.

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 guidance is given for when to use this tool instead of glpi_search_user, glpi_get_computer, or other sibling tools. There are no prerequisites or alternatives.

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