infomaniak_get_drive_user

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, establishing that this is a safe, read-only, idempotent operation. The description adds the 'complete user snapshot' context, which hints at the breadth of the return value, but does not disclose additional behavioral details such as permission requirements or error conditions. This is a minor addition beyond the annotations.

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, concise sentence that directly states the action and resource. There is no redundant phrasing, and it is front-loaded with the core purpose. It is appropriately sized for a simple read operation with strong structured metadata.

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 presence of an output schema and rich annotations, the description does not need to explain return values or safety. It provides enough context for an agent to know that this retrieves full user data for a specified drive user. However, it could have briefly mentioned that the tool requires both drive_id and user_id, which are already marked as required in the schema, so the gap is minor.

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 50% (only drive_id has a description). The description itself does not explain either parameter, nor does it clarify the relationship between drive_id and user_id. The parameter names are self-explanatory, but the description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, failing to compensate for the missing user_id description.

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 uses the specific verb 'Read' and clearly identifies the resource as 'the complete user snapshot for a kDrive user'. It effectively distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_drive_users (which lists users) and get_drive_full (which gets drive-level details).

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 such as list_drive_users or get_drive_full. It does not state explicit use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the tool name and the generic action described.

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