Contract Testing: Admin Get User

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the description adds little beyond stating the retrieval nature. It does not contradict annotations and provides additional context that it is admin-specific, which is mildly helpful.

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: a single sentence capturing the purpose, followed by a brief parameter listing. No extraneous information; every word is purposeful.

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 read operation with one required parameter and no output schema, the description is complete. It tells the agent exactly what to expect: a user detail retrieval by UUID. No additional context is necessary.

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 100%, and the description repeats the schema's parameter description ('UUID of the user'). No additional meaning or constraints are added, so the parameter semantics are adequate but not enhanced.

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 action ('Retrieve details') and resource ('a specific user by UUID'), and the '(admin)' qualifier distinguishes it from non-admin user retrieval tools. It is specific and helps differentiate from siblings like contract-testing_admin_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?

The description implicitly indicates usage: use this tool when you need details for a specific user by UUID. While not explicitly stating when not to use or alternatives, the context is clear enough for a simple retrieval operation.

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