get_user

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already indicates this is a read-only operation; the description reinforces this by stating 'Fetch one user'. It additionally discloses that the tool raises a specific HTTP error for unknown ids, which adds value beyond the annotation.

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 incredibly concise at two sentences, with the first sentence front-loading the primary purpose. Every sentence adds value, and there is no wasted text.

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?

Given the simplicity of the tool (1 required parameter, output schema present), the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, a typical workflow context, and error behavior. No gaps are apparent.

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 description does not explain the 'user_id' parameter beyond the generic 'by id'. Since the input schema has no description for this parameter (0% coverage), the tool description should compensate, but it only implies the parameter's purpose without adding format or constraints.

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 opens with 'Fetch one user by id', which is a clear and specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'list_board_collaborators' by providing a concrete use case.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool ('Useful after list_board_collaborators finds a candidate by name') and what actions to take ('confirm role flags and active state before assigning'). It also mentions an error condition (404 for unknown ids), providing comprehensive guidance.

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