okta_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 indicates a read operation (get) but omits details on error handling, permissions, or response behavior. The mention of multiple identifier types adds some behavioral context, but overall is minimal.

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 (8 words) that is front-loaded with the essential action and parameters, with no unnecessary words.

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 get tool, the description is largely sufficient. It covers the key purpose and parameter flexibility. However, it lacks mention of uniqueness of the result or comparison with list/search tools, which are available as siblings.

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 0%, but the description adds significant meaning by clarifying that the userId parameter can accept ID, login, or shortname, which is not evident from the schema (only string type). This compensates well for the lack of schema documentation.

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 action ('Get one Okta user') and specifies the resource and the three different identifiers accepted (ID, login, shortname), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like okta_get_application that target different resources.

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 implies usage when you have a user identifier (ID, login, or shortname), but does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives among sibling tools (e.g., okta_list_users for listing all users).

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