Get user info

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

Annotations already declare this as a read-only, open-world operation, and the description reinforces that with 'reads' and 'SPA GET headers'. It adds useful behavioral detail about source-specific key requirements and the group-path nuance. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 three compact, front-loaded lines with no filler. Every line contributes a distinct constraint or mapping, making it easy for an agent to scan and act on.

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?

For a read-only multi-source tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential invocation constraints: which ID each source needs and the group-path caveat. It does not describe the compact parameter or default behavior, but defaults are present in the schema and the conditional requirements are sufficiently explicit.

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 coverage is 71%, so the schema documents most parameters. The description adds valuable meaning beyond enumerations by mapping source values to the required IDs and clarifying that group is a path, not a GroupID. It also gives context for computer_guid, which the schema leaves undocumented, though compact remains unexplained.

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 that the tool performs user/computer detail reads and enumerates five distinct source modes. It is more specific than the title, but it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling read tools such as get_activity_detail or get_account_readonly.

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 gives concrete conditional usage guidance: user_data, tooltip, and group require user_id, while computer and users_from_computer require computer_guid. It also disambiguates group as a path, not a GroupID, which prevents a likely misuse. It does not mention alternatives among sibling tools, but the context for correct invocation is clear.

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