mcp_get_user

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic function without mentioning error behavior (e.g., user not found), side effects (none expected), or any additional constraints. This is insufficient for an AI agent to understand the tool's full behavior.

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 extremely concise at 5 words, front-loaded with the core purpose. No superfluous text, but it could include brief additional context without harming conciseness (e.g., 'Returns all user fields').

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 lack of output schema and zero behavioral transparency, the description should compensate by stating what is returned (e.g., 'Returns user object with fields id, name, email, roles, etc.'). It fails to do so, leaving the agent uncertain about the response format.

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 provides 100% coverage with a description for the single parameter 'id: User ID'. The description adds no further meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 user details by ID' clearly specifies the action (get), resource (user details), and scope (by ID). It distinguishes from sibling tools like mcp_list_users (list all) and mutation tools like mcp_create_user, mcp_delete_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 implies when to use this tool (retrieve single user) versus alternatives (e.g., mcp_list_users for listing, mcp_change_user_role for role change), but provides no explicit guidance, prerequisites, or when-not-to-use conditions.

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