Get Operator

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet 'look up' plus a unique name key already conveys read-only, single-entity semantics. It still omits permission requirements, behavior when the operator is not found, and whether the lookup is case-sensitive. Adequate but not rich.

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?

A single sentence with zero filler, front-loaded with the verb and resource. Nothing to trim and nothing buried.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and there is only one parameter. What is missing is the relationship to list_operators, which an agent choosing between the two would need. Minimum viable but visibly thin.

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 100%, so the single user_name parameter is already documented. The description's 'by name' adds no syntax, format, or matching detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb (look up) and resource (BigFix operator / console user) and narrows scope to a single record by name. The parenthetical disambiguates 'operator' as a console user, which is genuinely useful domain context. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling list_operators, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

'By name' implies single-record retrieval and implicitly contrasts with list_operators, but the description never names that alternative or states when to prefer one over the other. No prerequisites or conditions are given. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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