Get a subuser

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 does not disclose permission requirements, whether the call is read-only, what happens when the subuser is missing, or what the returned permission payload looks like.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though so brief that it borders on under-specification rather than being genuinely complete.

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 6-parameter, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool, the definition is minimal but the schema itself documents most inputs well. The missing pieces are read-vs-write semantics, auth expectations, and error/return behavior, which the description leaves unaddressed.

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 coverage is 83%, so most parameters (user UUID, panel, baseUrl, keys) are already documented inline. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond implying that permissions are returned for the identified subuser, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('one subuser and their permissions'), which is more precise than the bare name. The word 'one' implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling subuser_list, but it never names that sibling explicitly.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this versus subuser_list, subuser_update, or subuser_set_files. The singular 'one subuser' hints at a single-record lookup, but the agent must infer that from the sibling list rather than reading it in the description.

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