Get User

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

Beyond annotations already marking readOnly/idempotent/destructive hints, the description adds crucial behavioral context: id non-guessability and identical 404 responses for missing records vs unrouted paths. This enriches safety expectations without contradicting annotations.

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?

Three short paragraphs with front-loaded purpose, no filler. The 'Operation class: Read' line is a concise concluding marker. Every sentence 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 read-by-id tool with no output schema, the description covers the entity definition, prerequisite discoverability, response ambiguity caveat, and safety class. No significant gaps remain.

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 coverage is 100% for both parameters. The description further explains that ids are not guessable and points to list_users for name-based lookup, adding value to the id parameter beyond the schema's simple 'Numeric Hudu id'.

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 its numeric id' – a specific verb, resource, and method. It also clarifies what a user is (team member or portal member) and naturally distinguishes itself from hudu_list_users.

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 explicitly instructs to 'Use hudu_list_users first if you only know a name' and explains why (ids are not guessable, 404 ambiguity). This is a clear when-to-use vs alternative directive.

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