appwrite_get_user

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. While 'Get' implies read-only, the description does not confirm idempotency, safety guarantees, or what happens when the ID does not exist.

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?

Extremely concise (one sentence), but the '[UNIFIED]' prefix consumes space without adding actionable value. Otherwise efficiently structured with the action upfront.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description fails to hint at what user details are returned (profile fields, metadata, auth status). With 0% parameter coverage and a complex sibling environment, the description is insufficient for reliable invocation.

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 0% (neither 'site' nor 'user_id' have descriptions). The description mentions 'by ID' which implicitly maps to the user_id parameter, but provides no explanation for the 'site' parameter (format, valid values, relationship to user).

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 retrieves (Get) user details using an identifier (by ID), distinguishing it from siblings like appwrite_list_users (which would return collections) and appwrite_create_user/appwrite_delete_user. Deducts one point for the unexplained '[UNIFIED]' prefix which appears to be metadata noise.

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?

Provides no guidance on when to use this specific lookup versus list_users or search alternatives. No mention of prerequisites (e.g., obtaining user_id first) or error conditions (user not found).

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