get_user

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the return format (JSON with fields like id, displayname, email, quota, groups, language) and explains the argument. It does not cover error behavior or permissions, but the annotations cover the safety profile. This is adequate but not rich.

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 brief and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose, an Args section, and a Returns section. It avoids fluff and presents the essential information efficiently.

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 covers the argument and return format. However, it does not mention when to use it versus siblings, nor any potential failure modes (e.g., nonexistent user). Given the output schema exists and annotations cover safety, the remaining gaps are usage guidance and edge-case behavior.

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 schema has zero description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does so by explaining user_id as 'The user ID to look up' and providing concrete examples (admin, john.doe). This adds meaning beyond the bare schema property.

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 tool retrieves detailed information about a specific Nextcloud user, specifying the resource (user) and verb (get). It provides an example argument. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_current_user or list_users, which is a minor gap.

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 versus alternatives such as get_current_user (for the current user) or list_users (for all users). Given the large sibling list, the absence of selection criteria is a significant deficiency.

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