rm_get_user

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

The description is consistent with the annotations: readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false align with 'Get details'. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond what the annotations already state, such as authentication expectations, error behavior, or what 'details' includes.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word earns its place, and the core operation is immediately visible.

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 low complexity, the presence of an output schema, and annotations that fully cover the safety profile, the description is largely complete for an agent to call this tool. The only real gap is the lack of user_id format guidance, but the schema already exposes the integer/string union.

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 for the bare user_id parameter. 'For a specific user' adds minimal meaning but does not clarify whether user_id is a numeric ID, a string UUID, an email, or another identifier, despite the schema allowing both integer and string types.

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 'Get details for a specific user' uses a clear verb and resource, and the qualifier 'specific user' separates it from listing tools like rm_list_users. However, it does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools that also focus on a single user, such as rm_get_user_availability or rm_get_user_utilization, leaving 'details' somewhat generic.

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 the tool should be used when you need the full details for one user rather than a list, but it provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. No alternatives are named, and the agent must infer the boundary between this and other user-specific getters from sibling names.

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