Get user

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

The description adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations already declare (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint). It doesn't mention return structure, pagination, or any edge cases. The phrase 'detailed information' is vague and doesn't disclose what information is included.

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 sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, which is appropriate for this simple tool.

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-by-id tool with one parameter, the description is adequate but not rich. There is no output schema, and the description doesn't enumerate what 'detailed information' includes, so agents may be uncertain about the return payload. However, the simplicity of the tool reduces the need for extensive documentation.

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%, with a well-described userId parameter. The description doesn't add any additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies. No extra context about the ID format or how to obtain it is provided.

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 uses the verb 'Get' with a specific resource ('team member (user)'), distinguishing it from listing tools like list-users. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar sibling tools like get-actor or get-beta-tester, though the user/team member clarifier provides reasonable specificity.

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 vs alternatives. The description simply states what it does, with no mention of prerequisites, contrast with list-users, or situations where another tool might be more appropriate.

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