구성원 최소 프로필 조회

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the disclosure burden. The main behavioral disclosure is that userId=me is blocked for Service Accounts, which is valuable. However, it doesn't state whether this is a read-only operation, potential failure modes (e.g., unauthorized users, unknown IDs), or response shape.

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, tight sentence plus a short constraint clause. It's efficient with no filler. Slightly more detail would be acceptable, but the current wording is appropriately compact.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and a single opaque parameter, the description must carry more weight. It fails to mention what fields the minimal profile returns, prereducuate requirements (auth level), or error behavior. For a single-parameter lookup tool this is on the thinner side, though the 'already known userId' framing helps scope it.

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 schema has a single self-explanatory parameter (userId) with 0% schema description coverage. The description reinforces that the ID must be 'already known' and that 'me' is invalid for Service Accounts, which adds slight meaning beyond the bare schema. But the schema itself is minimal, so the description does not heavily enrich parameter semantics.

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 states a specific verb+resource: it queries a user's minimal profile using a known userId. It's reasonably clear, though differentiating from sibling tools like works_directory_users_list or works_contact_search_minimal is not addressed, so it doesn't fully distinguish itself.

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 notes a precondition ('already know the userId') and an exclusion (blocks userId=me for Service Account), which is useful guidance. However, it doesn't clarify when to use this minimal-profile tool vs a full-profile or user-list alternative among siblings.

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