Get User

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It lists the return fields, which provides some transparency, but it omits error handling, authentication requirements, and an explicit statement that this is a read-only operation. The added behavioral context is partial.

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 concise: two sentences with the action front-loaded. It lists the returned fields efficiently without unnecessary detail, making it easy to scan.

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 simple one-parameter read tool, the description covers the return fields but lacks mention of the required parameter, error behavior, and usage context. It is marginally adequate but leaves gaps that the agent would need to resolve.

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%, and the description does not mention the 'username' parameter at all. The parameter name and tool name imply its meaning, but the description fails to connect the parameter to the tool's function, so it adds no meaningful semantic value.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves user info and enumerates the returned fields, distinguishing it from siblings like discourse_list_users by implying a single-user lookup. The verb 'Get' and resource 'user info' are specific and unambiguous.

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 vs alternatives like discourse_list_users or discourse_search. The description does not mention selection criteria, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name.

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