get_user_info_tool

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It successfully discloses return value structure ('edit count, registration date, and groups') which substitutes for the unseen output schema. However, missing error handling behavior (e.g., what happens if username doesn't exist) and auth requirements.

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?

Uses structured docstring format (Args/Returns) which is clear but slightly heavy for a single-parameter tool. Content is front-loaded with the main purpose in the first sentence. No redundant or wasted text.

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?

Appropriate for a simple lookup tool with one required parameter. Since output schema exists (per context signals), the description's explanation of return values provides adequate completeness without over-specifying. Minor gap on error case handling.

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 coverage is 0% (username property lacks description), but the description fully compensates by documenting the single parameter in the Args section ('Username to look up'). Complete semantic coverage for the input.

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?

Clear verb-resource combination ('Get user details from the wiki') that clearly distinguishes this from sibling page/file/category tools like get_page_tool or get_file_info_tool. Scope is specific and unambiguous.

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?

Lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus list_user_contributions_tool (which also returns user activity data) or search_tool. Usage is implied by the name and description but no alternatives or prerequisites are mentioned.

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