pve_get_user

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Get user configuration' implies a read-only operation, but doesn't specify authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what format the configuration data returns. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral questions unanswered.

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 extremely concise at just three words. There's no wasted language or unnecessary elaboration. For a simple read operation with good schema coverage, this brevity is appropriate and efficient.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what 'user configuration' includes, what format the data returns, or any behavioral constraints. While the parameter is well-documented in the schema, the overall context for using this tool effectively is lacking.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'userid' clearly documented as 'User ID (format: user@realm)'. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides, which is acceptable given the high schema coverage. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate parameter documentation through the schema alone.

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 'Get user configuration' clearly states the action (get) and resource (user configuration), which is better than a tautology. However, it doesn't specify what 'user configuration' includes or distinguish this tool from other user-related tools like pve_create_user or pve_update_user beyond the obvious 'get' vs 'create/update' difference.

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. There's no mention of prerequisites, related tools like pve_list_users, or context about what information this provides that other tools don't. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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