Show User Info

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, idempotent), the description adds concrete details: the header requirement, the globally unique id, the read-only nature, and expected error status codes (401, 403, 404). This provides actionable behavioral context beyond what annotations state.

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 long but well-organized, opening with the main purpose, then parameter effects, usage note, return info, and error handling. Every sentence carries useful information; it's slightly dense but not redundant. Could be trimmed but overall effective.

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?

With no output schema, the description states the return format (single JSON object) and key behavior (auth header, errors). It covers the essential aspects for an agent to decide to call and interpret the result. The low complexity and strong annotations make this sufficient.

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 already covers the parameter descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds meaningful context: that including a company_id or project_id triggers directory-specific info and that the Procore-Company-Id header is required only when these params are used. This enriches the schema.

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 returns information about the authenticated user, specifies the endpoint, and mentions the unique user id. It also provides a usage context ('when you already know which user info you want and need its full field set') that distinguishes it from search/list alternatives among siblings.

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?

It gives an explicit when-to-use statement and explains the condition for including optional params (company_id/project_id) and the header requirement. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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