users_get_instance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses nothing: not that it is a read-only operation, not its auth requirements, not that id must reference an existing user, and not what happens on a missing id. 'GET /v1/users/{id}' conveys no behavior beyond the HTTP verb.

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?

It is short, but the text 'GET /v1/users/{id} (GET /v1/users/{id})' needlessly duplicates the identical path string in parentheses, so the one fragment present does not earn its place.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and five parameters including relationship/filter options, the description should at minimum state that it retrieves a single user and how the sparse-fieldset and include parameters shape the response. It supplies none of that, leaving an agent nothing to work with.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the enum lists for 'include', 'fields_apps', and 'fields_users' and the meaning of 'limit_visibleApps' are already documented in the schema. The description adds nothing on top, which is the baseline 3 for a fully documented schema.

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 states a specific verb (GET) and resource path (/v1/users/{id}), so an agent can infer it fetches a single user. However, it is a bare route restatement with no plain-language framing and offers no differentiation from siblings such as users_get_collection or users_visible_apps_get_to_many_related.

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?

There is no guidance whatsoever about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention users_get_collection (for listing) or the relationship endpoints, nor any prerequisite such as needing a valid user id.

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