security_user_detail

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already tells the agent this is a read-only operation, and the description does not contradict it. However, it adds no behavioral detail beyond that annotation—no auth requirements, return format, pagination, or rate limits. It is safe but sparse.

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 very short and contains no filler, but it is a sentence fragment rather than a structured, front-loaded explanation. Its brevity comes at the cost of clarity for a tool with two required parameters.

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 a simple read-only operation with no output schema, so the description need not explain return values. Still, it leaves the required host parameter unexplained and provides no usage context, making it incomplete for an agent to invoke confidently.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for two required parameters. It only vaguely references 'one user' and never explains the 'host' parameter, leaving both parameters essentially undocumented. No format or meaning is provided beyond parameter names.

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 the resource (effective privileges of one user) but omits a verb and does not distinguish this tool from sibling tools such as user_privileges or security_users. The 'for the Users tab' clause adds UI context rather than functional clarity. It is usable but vague enough that an agent must infer the operation.

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 given about when to use this tool versus alternatives like user_privileges or who_can_access. The only context, 'for the Users tab,' implies a UI location, not a selection condition. There are no exclusions or prerequisites.

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