clio_get_user

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

With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions technical routing (JWT, tenant, scope) but does not clarify side effects, required permissions, or whether it is a safe read operation. The existence of an output schema is not leveraged.

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 short but includes unnecessary technical routing details that are likely better placed in configuration. It suffers from under-specification rather than true conciseness, failing to earn its limited space.

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 simple parameter model and presence of an output schema, the description should explain the return value or behavior. It does not, making it incomplete for an agent to use correctly.

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 single parameter 'arguments' is described as a 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation,' which adds minimal meaning beyond the schema. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should provide more detail about expected keys or structure.

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 it is a 'get_user' operation, which is essentially a tautology of the tool name. It does not specify which user (e.g., by ID or current user) and fails to differentiate from sibling tools like clio_get_contact or clio_list_users.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, when not to use it, or comparison to clio_list_users or other get_* tools.

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