clio_get_user

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful context beyond that: the effect parameter must be 'read' and Spring verifies it, and the operation routes only through the exact project/account governed connector authority. It also explains approval_ref only applies when resuming a write. This does not contradict annotations and provides some behavioral detail, though it does not describe request/response behavior.

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 organized as a docstring with a title line, a routing note, and an Args list. The first line is redundant with the tool name, and the routing sentence is somewhat abstract. The Args list is necessary but several entries are terse. It is not bloated, but it contains some filler and could be tightened.

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 connector operation that fetches a user, the description omits what the underlying operation actually does, what information must go into the 'arguments' JSON (e.g., user ID), and how this relates to the output. There is an output schema, but the description still fails to explain the core purpose or required inputs. An agent cannot confidently call this tool correctly from the description alone.

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 7 parameters have no schema-level descriptions. The description compensates by giving each parameter a short definition: arguments is a JSON string, project_id is an authenticated Project UUID, connector_account_ref is a project-bound alias, etc. This is meaningful, though some labels like 'Exact project correlation reference' remain vague. Since it covers all params in the schema, it deserves a strong score.

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 begins with 'Clio connector operation `get_user`', which merely restates the tool name without explaining what the operation does. It does not say that it retrieves a Clio user, nor does it distinguish itself from siblings like clio_get_contact or clio_get_matter. The only substantive clause about routing is about authorization constraints, not purpose.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it is for fetching a single user, nor does it point to clio_list_users for enumerating users. The routing note is a technical constraint, not a usage recommendation. No exclusions or conditions are provided.

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