get_user

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds no behavioral details beyond the obvious 'Get'. Since annotations already cover the safety profile, a score of 3 is appropriate—the description does not contradict but also does not enrich understanding of side effects, rate limits, or return format.

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 of 6 words, front-loading the key action and resource. It uses no filler or redundant phrasing. Every word earns its place, making it highly efficient for an agent to parse.

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 simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. However, it does not specify what 'details' are returned (e.g., name, email, avatar) or any pagination/limit info. With an openWorldHint, it might return arbitrary fields, but the description could benefit from a hint like 'name, email, and other profile fields' to set expectations. Thus a 3 is fair.

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 for the single parameter 'user_id'. The description mentions 'by ID', aligning with the schema but adding no new semantic meaning. The schema already explains it's a Canvas user ID. Thus the description adds minimal value beyond the schema, warranting a baseline 3.

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 tool name 'get_user' and description 'Get details for a single user by ID' clearly specify a retrieval operation targeting a specific user resource. The verb 'Get' and the resource 'user' are precise, and the mention of 'by ID' distinguishes it from list operations. Given the sibling tools, it differentiates well from tools like 'get_profile' which might imply a different scope (e.g., 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_profile', 'search_users', or 'get_my_grades'. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusion criteria. An agent would need to infer usage solely from the name and parameter, which is insufficient for optimal selection.

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