gitlab_get_user_details

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes what the tool returns ('detailed information about a user's GitLab activity'), including specific categories like profile, statistics, activity, settings, and social links. However, it lacks details on error handling, rate limits, or authentication requirements, which would elevate the score further.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose but becomes verbose with redundant sections like 'Use cases' and 'Returns extended user information' that repeat earlier points. While informative, it could be more streamlined by eliminating repetition, such as merging the activity summary with the detailed return list.

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 complexity of a user details tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does a good job of covering purpose, usage, and return values. It includes examples, parameter guidance, and sibling tool differentiation. However, it could improve by specifying output format or error cases to be fully comprehensive.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters (user_id and username). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by noting 'use either user_id or username' and providing an example, but it doesn't clarify exclusivity or priority rules. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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's purpose with specific verbs ('Get comprehensive activity summary and contributions') and resources ('for a specific user'). It explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'gitlab_get_user' for basic profile info and 'gitlab_search_user' for finding users, making the differentiation clear and actionable.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('when you need detailed insights into a user's GitLab activity and contributions') and when to use alternatives ('For basic user profile info, use 'gitlab_get_user' instead. For finding users by search, use 'gitlab_search_user' instead.'). It also includes use cases and examples, offering comprehensive context for selection.

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