bitrix_get_user

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns 'полную информацию' (full information) but does not say what fields that includes, how errors or nonexistent user IDs are handled, or whether the operation is read-only. For an unannotated tool, this is a significant gap.

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 sentence with zero filler, front-loaded with the action, resource, and lookup key. The length is ideally matched to the tool's simplicity.

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 the simplest possible signature — one fully documented integer parameter and no output schema — the required inputs are completely specified and the ans agent can call it correctly. The main gaps are the unstated return structure and not-found/error behavior, which the agent must infer or discover at runtime.

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 the sole parameter userId is already documented with its type, bounds, and description 'IDпоьзователя'. The description only echoes this with 'по ID' and adds no additional semantic meaning, warranting the baseline 3.

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 uses a specific verb ('Получить' — get), a resource (Bitrix24 user), and a retrieval method ('по ID' — by ID), and claims to return full user information. It clearly describes the action and scope, though it does not explicitly name or distinguish sibling tools such as bitrix_list_users, relying on 'по ID' to imply single-record retrieval.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like bitrix_list_users for listing users or bitrix_find_contact for searching by attributes. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or context rules beyond the bare one-sentence description.

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