litmos_get_user

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds no behavioral context beyond stating it 'retrieves' data. It does not mention permissions, rate limits, or side effects, but the annotations sufficiently cover the safety profile. Slight missed opportunity to reinforce safety.

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 concise: a one-sentence summary followed by structured Args/Returns sections. Every sentence contributes meaning, and the most critical information (what the tool does) is front-loaded. No redundant or verbose phrasing.

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?

The description includes a return type and lists example fields, which compensates for the output schema not being shown. It covers the essential context for a simple retrieval tool. However, it does not explain how this tool relates to siblings that also access user data, which could reduce completeness for agents choosing among them.

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 description repeats the schema's parameter description for user_id ('Litmos encrypted user ID (returned by search/list tools)') without adding new information. Since the schema already defines the parameter with a description, the description offers minimal additional semantic value. The top-level text mentions 'by their encrypted ID' but lacks depth.

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 the full profile of a single Litmos user by encrypted ID. It specifies the action (Retrieve) and the resource (full profile for a single Litmos user). However, it does not differentiate itself from sibling tools like litmos_get_user_courses or litmos_get_user_teams, which retrieve subsets of the user data.

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 mentions that the user_id is a Litmos encrypted ID returned by search/list tools, providing a hint on where to obtain the ID. It does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings (e.g., when you need the full user profile vs. only courses). No guidance on when not to use it or alternatives is provided.

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