Binalyze AIR MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a 'get' operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't confirm if it's safe, whether it requires specific permissions, or if it has rate limits. It mentions 'detailed information' but doesn't specify what that includes (e.g., user attributes, roles) or potential errors (e.g., invalid ID). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Get detailed information about a specific user by their ID'). There's no wasted verbiage or redundancy, and it directly communicates the essential action and resource without unnecessary elaboration.

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 low complexity (1 parameter, no nested objects) and high schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., safety, permissions) and return values. For a simple retrieval tool, this is acceptable but leaves room for improvement in clarifying what 'detailed information' entails and any usage constraints.

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 100% description coverage, with the 'id' parameter fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying the ID is for a user. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate—the description doesn't enhance parameter understanding but doesn't need to compensate for gaps.

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 detailed information') and resource ('about a specific user'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It specifies retrieval by ID, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'list_users' that retrieve multiple users. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other 'get_by_id' tools (e.g., 'get_asset_by_id', 'get_case_by_id') beyond the user resource.

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. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'list_users' for browsing users or 'get_organization_users' for organization-specific user lists. There's no context about prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid user ID) or when this tool is preferred over other user-related operations.

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