snipeit_users_get

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description must carry the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It does not state whether the operation is read-only (though 'Get' implies it), nor does it mention error handling (e.g., what happens if user not found), authorization requirements, or response format. This is a simple getter, but without annotations, more context is needed to fully inform the agent.

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, concise sentence with no redundant words. It is appropriately front-loaded with the verb and resource. It is under-specified but not verbose.

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 getter with only one parameter and no output schema, the description is mostly sufficient: it tells the agent exactly what to call and with what. However, given the lack of annotations and no explanation of return value or error behavior, it is not fully complete. The tool is simple, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 one parameter 'id' of type number, which is self-explanatory. The description adds the phrase 'by ID' which clarifies that the 'id' parameter is the user's identifier, but this is already implied by the parameter name and the type. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate, but it does not add significant meaning beyond what the schema already conveys (e.g., it doesn't state that the ID is the Snipe-IT user ID, or if it's a numeric database ID). Thus, the description adds only marginal 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 states a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('a user'), and the 'by ID' qualifier distinguishes it from snipeit_users_list, which presumably retrieves multiple users. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from other getters like snipeit_locations_get, but the resource is clear enough.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It is implied that you use it when you have a user ID and need a single user's details, but no alternatives are named (e.g., snipeit_users_list for multiple users) and no exclusions are stated. The agent must infer usage from the 'by ID' qualifier.

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