getUserInfo

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. 'Get user information' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't specify authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or what the output looks like (e.g., JSON structure). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its 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 extremely concise with just three words, 'Get user information', which is front-loaded and wastes no space. Every word contributes to the core purpose, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimal. While it states the purpose, it lacks context on usage, behavioral traits, or output format. For a tool in a server with many siblings, more completeness is needed to guide the agent effectively, such as distinguishing from 'getUserStats' or explaining return values.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, meaning no parameters are documented in the schema. The description doesn't add parameter details, but since there are no parameters, this is acceptable. Baseline is 4 for 0 parameters, as no additional semantic information is needed beyond the schema's completeness.

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 user information' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('user information'), making the purpose understandable. However, it's somewhat vague about what specific user information is retrieved (e.g., profile details, preferences, stats) and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'getUserStats', which might overlap in functionality.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'getUserStats' available, it doesn't specify if this tool is for general user data, while 'getUserStats' might be for metrics, or if they serve different contexts. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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