Get User (GraphQL)

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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the description doesn't need to repeat those. It adds behavioral detail by enumerating the returned fields, which is useful for the agent to know the output shape. No contradictions with annotations; the 'public profile' wording implies no auth or mutation.

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 sentence that front-loads the key purpose ('Public profile by username') followed by a compact list of return fields. Zero redundancy, every word earns its place.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is complete. It states what it does, the parameter semantics, and the return contents. Annotations cover the safety profile, so nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 provides only the parameter name 'name' with no description, so coverage is 0%. The description compensates by clarifying that the parameter is a username ('by username'), which is essential for correct usage. It doesn't add further format details (e.g., case sensitivity), but for a single string param, this is sufficient.

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 (get) and the resource (public profile) keyed by username. It lists specific return fields (member id, join date, kudos, mod/collection counts, about) and distinguishes from siblings like validate_user or get_mod by focusing on public profile data.

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 provides clear context for when to use: when you need a user's public profile by username. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is so specific that an agent can infer the appropriate use case. No explicit comparison to validate_user or other user-related tools is given, which is a minor gap.

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