seerr_get_user

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already signals this is a safe read operation, and the description 'Get user by ID' is consistent with it. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the annotation, such as what data is returned or whether authentication is required, but for a simple read operation this is acceptable given the annotation coverage.

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, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It is appropriately minimal for a straightforward get-by-ID operation, earning a perfect score for conciseness.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, readOnly hint, and an output schema), the description is mostly adequate. However, it fails to clarify which specific 'user' entity this returns relative to sibling tools like seerr_get_user_requests or seerr_get_user_jellyfin. The output schema may help, but the description alone leaves this ambiguity. Still, for a basic ID lookup, this is minor.

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 defines a single required integer parameter 'user_id' with no description (0% coverage). The description's 'by ID' confirms that this parameter is the user's identifier, but adds no further insight into the ID's origin or format beyond what the schema already states. The parameter name and type are largely self-explanatory, so the description provides minimal added value but is sufficient for a simple tool.

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 by ID' clearly states the operation (get) and the target resource (user), with a specific scope (by ID). It distinguishes from list-type tools like seerr_list_user, but not from other get_user_* siblings (e.g., seerr_get_user_requests, seerr_get_user_jellyfin), which also fetch user-related data. Still, it is specific enough to indicate a single-user retrieval.

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 to prefer this over seerr_list_user, or when a different get_user_* tool (like seerr_get_user_requests) would be more appropriate. The usage context is only implied by the tool name and description.

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