get_user

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states what is included (project memberships and roles) but does not disclose whether this is a read-only operation, any permission requirements, potential error cases, or whether user_id refers to a system-wide ID or a project-local ID.

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 concise and front-loaded with the main action. The Args section is clearly separated and the entire text is well within reasonable length with no 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?

For a low-complexity tool (1 param, has output schema), the description covers the basic purpose and key return content (projects, roles). However, it lacks usage context, alternative differentiation, and any behavioral caveats that would fully prepare an agent, especially without annotations.

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%, so the description must compensate. It provides 'user_id: user ID', which adds minimal meaning beyond the schema's title and type. It does not explain how to obtain the user ID or any constraints (e.g., must be an existing 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 uses a specific verb ('Show') and clearly states the resource (user's details), including project memberships and roles. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_users (list) and get_current_user (current user).

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that get_current_user is for the authenticated user or that list_users is for browsing users, nor any conditions like 'use this when you have a user_id'.

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