get_operator

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry full behavioral transparency burden. It only states the action 'look up' and does not disclose whether this is a read-only operation, what happens if the operator is not found, or any other behavioral traits. This is a minimal disclosure that leaves the agent uncertain about important side effects or error conditions.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource. It is concise and free of filler or redundant information, earning a perfect score for conciseness and structure.

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?

The tool is simple (one parameter) and has an output schema, but the description lacks critical contextual details such as the read-only nature and error behavior. While the output schema may cover return values, the absence of annotations and minimal description leaves the agent without complete context on how this tool behaves in different scenarios.

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 provides 100% coverage of the single parameter user_name, with a clear description. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, but with full schema coverage the description is not required to supplement parameters. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 is specific and unambiguous: 'Look up a BigFix operator (console user) by name.' It uses a clear verb ('look up'), identifies the resource ('BigFix operator'), and specifies the method (by name). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like whoami (current operator) and get_server_info (server information).

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 implies when to use the tool: when you need to look up an operator by name. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. The usage context is inferred rather than fully articulated.

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