get-manager

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

With no annotations, the description must bear the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds the useful fact that the result is null at the top of the hierarchy and that only 'core attributes' are returned. However, it does not disclose other potential null cases (e.g., invalid userId), whether the operation is read-only, error behavior, or data sensitivity. Some behavioral context is provided, but significant gaps remain.

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, focused sentence that front-loads the key purpose and includes the important null case. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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?

This is a simple one-parameter tool, but it has no output schema and no annotations, so the description must fully explain behavior and output. It mentions 'core attributes' without specifying them and ignores how errors are handled or what happens for a non-existent user. The description is insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior and return 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 has one required parameter, userId, with no description. The description says 'a user's manager' but never explicitly ties this to the userId parameter, nor does it explain the parameter's format, constraints, or meaning beyond the obvious. With schema description coverage at 0%, the description should compensate but does not, leaving the parameter meaning largely implicit from the tool name.

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 defines the resource (a user's manager) and indicates the return value includes core attributes and null at the top of the chain. The verb 'get' is present in the tool name, making the action clear. It is distinct from sibling tools like polyarchy-expand or get-photo, though it lacks an explicit verb in the description itself.

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 does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative tools like polyarchy-search or visualize-identity. The context is purely informational about the return value, not about selecting the right tool.

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