ise_ers_get_adminuser

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description states it is a read ('Get') operation but provides no detail on return format, error behavior, or requirements. For a non-destructive GET by ID, the ambiguity is moderate but acceptable given the read-only nature implied by the name and description.

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 that states the tool's action and resource clearly with zero wasted words. Front-loaded with the verb 'Get' and identifies the resource (Admin Users object) and scope (by ID).

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 single-ID GET tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose. The deployment parameter is documented in the schema. The tool is straightforward: retrieve one object by ID. No output schema exists, so the description doesn't need to describe return values beyond what's implied by 'Get a single object'.

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 50%: the 'deployment' param is fully documented with examples and alternatives, while 'id' lacks a description. The description's core purpose is to retrieve an Admin Users object by ID, which explains the primary parameter's role despite the schema gap on 'id'. The description adds no new param detail beyond the schema, but the schema already handles the more complex deployment param well.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get'), names the resource ('Admin Users object'), and the mechanism ('by ID'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like ise_ers_search_adminuser (search) and ise_ers_list_adminuser (list all). The purpose is unambiguously a single-object retrieval by ID.

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 when-to-use guidance or alternatives are given. The description does not mention when to choose this over ise_ers_search_adminuser or ise_ers_list_adminuser. Usage context must be inferred from the tool name pattern and the 'by ID' qualifier, which distinguishes it from list/search siblings implicitly, but no explicit exclusions or alternative references are provided.

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