find_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. It discloses pagination behavior with start and limit parameters, but does not mention authentication requirements, rate limits, or side effects. As a read/search operation, idempotency is implied but not stated.

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 concise, with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter definitions. No superfluous information. The structure is efficient and front-loaded.

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 presence of an output schema (context signal), the description does not need to explain return values. It covers the search and pagination behavior adequately. However, it could mention default sorting or behavior on empty results, but overall it is complete for this tool's complexity.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, but the tool description provides detailed docstrings for all three parameters: filter (search text), start (page start index, default 0), and limit (results per page, default 25). This compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions and adds meaning beyond type information.

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 that the tool searches for users by partial name, username, or email address. This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_code or find_file, as it targets user entities.

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 mentions that it returns user details including the slug needed for reviewer fields, which hints at its use case. However, it does not explicitly state when to use or avoid this tool relative to others like list_dashboard_pull_requests, but the context is clear enough for a search tool.

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