get_user

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get user information' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't specify whether this requires specific permissions, rate limits, error conditions, or what the response format looks like (e.g., JSON structure). For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 with just three words, which is front-loaded and wastes no space. However, it borders on under-specification given the lack of context, slightly reducing its effectiveness despite the brevity.

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, 100% schema coverage) but lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'user information' entails, potential use cases, or behavioral aspects like authentication needs, making it insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's context and limitations.

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, with the 'userId' parameter clearly documented as 'User ID or 'me' for current user'. The description adds no additional parameter details beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3 for adequate but minimal value addition.

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 information' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('user information'), which is better than a tautology. However, it's somewhat vague about what specific information is retrieved (e.g., profile details, permissions, activity) and doesn't distinguish this tool from potential sibling tools like 'get_work_package' or 'raw_api_call' in terms of scope or data type.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., authentication needs), context for 'userId' parameter usage, or how it differs from other user-related operations that might exist in the system. This leaves the agent with minimal direction.

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