admin-get-user-preferences

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states a read operation ('retrieve') but does not disclose authorization requirements, error behavior, data format, or any other operational traits. Minimal transparency beyond the basic function.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is concise and efficient, though it sacrifices detail for brevity. The structure is appropriate for its simplicity.

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 has only one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is thin. It does not explain return values, error cases, or the difference from similar admin preference tools (e.g., singular vs plural). The context is incomplete for reliable selection and invocation.

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 one required parameter, user_id, with no description. The tool description adds 'for a specific user', which merely echoes the parameter name and does not clarify expected format (e.g., UUID, email) or additional semantics. With 0% schema coverage, the description fails to compensate.

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 a specific verb ('retrieve'), resource ('preferences'), and scope ('for a specific user'), distinguishing it from tools like get-my-preferences. However, it does not differentiate between this and the similarly named admin-get-user-preference (singular vs plural), so it loses a point.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as admin-get-all-preferences or admin-get-user-preference. The usage context is only implied by the description's mention of 'specific user', with no explicit exclusions or comparisons.

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