redmine_user_get

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only restates the HTTP method (GET) and endpoint, implying a read-only operation but not stating it explicitly. It omits any information about authentication requirements, error behavior (e.g., 404 when user not found), rate limits, or response structure. This is minimal coverage for a tool that agents might call in varied contexts.

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 a single sentence with no fluff, which is appropriately concise. It front-loads the core purpose. However, it is so terse that it sacrifices useful context, but for conciseness scoring, it earns high marks for not wasting words.

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 absence of an output schema, annotations, and any explanatory text, the description leaves significant gaps. It does not explain what the response will contain, how errors are signaled, or how the 'include' parameter enriches the result. For a simple GET, an agent might still need to know about pagination or filtering options, which are absent. The description is incomplete for confident invocation.

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%, so the description must compensate for explaining parameters. It fails to do so: it does not mention the required 'id' parameter or the optional 'include' parameter, nor does it explain what 'include' (memberships, groups) controls. An agent would have to inspect the schema to understand parameter semantics, and the description adds no value beyond the schema's raw definitions.

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 the action ('Get user') and the resource ('/users/:id.json'), which unambiguously distinguishes it from sibling tools like redmine_users_list (list), redmine_user_create (create), redmine_user_update (update), and redmine_user_delete (delete). The verb+resource combination is specific and informative.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this is for fetching a single user by ID, while redmine_users_list is for listing multiple users. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use context, leaving the agent to infer the intended usage from the name and endpoint.

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