get_user

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get a single user' without mentioning what is returned, what happens if the user is not found, permissions required, or any side effects. This is minimal and insufficient for transparent behavior.

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 concise sentence of 8 words, front-loaded with the verb 'Get' and the resource 'single user'. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or filler.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description must explain what the tool returns and any important behavior. It only says 'Get a single user', which does not specify the return format, error conditions, or that both IDs are required. This is insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's capabilities for a simple getter with no structured output metadata.

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%, and the parameter descriptions ('User ID', 'User database ID') are tautological. The tool description adds a bit of context by saying 'from a user database', which implies the relationship between user_db_id and user_id. This provides marginal added meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 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?

The description 'Get a single user from a user database' clearly states the verb (get), resource (user), and scope (from a user database). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_user_db (which retrieves a database) and other get_* tools by specifying the source context. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or contrast with them, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_user_db, get_user_attribute, or list_user_attributes. The description does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative tools, leaving the agent without context for tool selection.

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