entra_id_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. It states the tool retrieves a user but doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling (e.g., if the user isn't found), or what the output looks like (e.g., user details). For a read operation with zero 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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Get a user from Entra ID') and adds necessary detail ('by object ID, UPN, or email address'). There is no wasted verbiage, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.

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 complexity (a user lookup in Entra ID), lack of annotations, no output schema, and poor parameter documentation (0% schema coverage with minimal description help), the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover authentication, output format, error cases, or parameter usage, leaving critical gaps for an AI agent to use it effectively.

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 1 parameter ('kwargs') with 0% description coverage, meaning the schema provides no details about what this parameter should contain. The description mentions lookup methods ('by object ID, UPN, or email address') but doesn't explain how to specify these in 'kwargs' (e.g., format, syntax, or examples). This fails to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('a user from Entra ID (Azure AD)'), specifying the action and target. It distinguishes from siblings like 'entra_id_list_users' by focusing on retrieving a single user rather than listing multiple. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'entra_id_get_group' beyond the resource 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 like 'entra_id_list_users' for multiple users or other lookup methods. It mentions lookup methods ('by object ID, UPN, or email address') but doesn't specify when to choose one over another or any prerequisites. This leaves the agent without clear usage context.

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