duo_get_user

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool returns a user's full detail including status and enrolled-factor summary, which implies a read-only operation. However, it does not mention error behavior, rate limits, or any other side effects. The provided info is minimal but not misleading.

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, compact sentence with the primary action and key details front-loaded. There is no wasted text, making it highly efficient.

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 gives a partial idea of the return value by mentioning status and enrolled-factor summary, but does not enumerate all fields returned. For a simple get tool with one parameter, this is acceptable, but it could be more explicit about the full response structure or error handling.

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 describes the single parameter 'userId' as 'Duo user_id', and the description repeats 'by user_id'. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3; the description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so a 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description uses a specific verb ('Get'), a clear resource ('user'), and scopes it to a single user by user_id, while naming what's included (status and enrolled-factor summary). This clearly differentiates it from sibling list tools like duo_list_users and other get_* tools for different resources.

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 implies usage when needing full detail for one user, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives. It is clear from context that this is for single-user detail rather than lists, but there's no explicit routing guidance.

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