Get user

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: no note on permission requirements, missing-record behavior, or how the 'fields' trimming affects the response, so it contributes no behavioral context of its own.

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 waste and the key scope (by ID) front-loaded. It is efficient, though its brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined trimming of useful content.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations carry the safety profile. What is missing is routing context in a large sibling set containing glpi_list_users and glpi_search_user_by_email, which the description should have addressed.

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 100%, so userId, fields, and format are all documented in the schema itself. The phrase 'by ID' merely echoes the required parameter and adds no syntax or semantics beyond what the schema already provides, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 (Retrieve) and resource (user) scoped by ID, which is clearly distinct from the plural glpi_list_users. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from glpi_search_user_by_email or glpi_list_users, which are the natural alternatives an agent would weigh.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance and never mentions alternatives such as glpi_search_user_by_email or glpi_list_users. An agent must infer from the name alone that this is the direct-lookup path when a numeric ID is already known.

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