get_user_options

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: it explains that keys are returned without the internal `user<id>.` prefix and that an empty object is returned when no options exist. It stops short of documenting authentication requirements or error behavior, but adds substantial value.

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?

Three compact sentences, front-loaded with the core operation and followed by precise return-value details. Every sentence earns its place by clarifying output shape, key formatting, and empty-state behavior.

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?

With no output schema and no parameters, the description carries the burden of explaining the return value, which it does thoroughly: key/value map, prefix stripping, and empty-object fallback. Annotations cover the safety profile, so nothing critical is missing for correct 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?

There are zero parameters, so parameter semantics baseline is 4. The description correctly does not waste space on nonexistent inputs, keeping the focus on return behavior.

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 states a specific verb and resource: returns per-user options for the authenticated user. It also clarifies the return shape (key/value map) and scope, which distinguishes it from sibling get_server_options and user detail tools like get_user. An agent can identify the operation without opening any schema.

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?

Usage is implied by the 'authenticated user' scope and the read-only nature of the operation, but the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_user, get_current_user, or get_server_options. It also does not mention pairing with set_user_option for updates. Adequate but with clear gaps in routing guidance.

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