get_user

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While it indicates this is a read operation ('Get detailed information'), it doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or whether the operation is idempotent. For a tool accessing IAM resources with no annotation coverage, this represents a significant gap.

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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by Args and Returns sections. Every sentence earns its place: the first establishes the tool's function, the second clarifies the single parameter, and the third describes the return value. No wasted words or redundancy.

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?

For a single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description provides adequate but minimal coverage. It explains what the tool does and what it returns, but lacks important context about authentication, error handling, and differentiation from sibling tools. The absence of annotations means the description should do more to compensate, particularly for an IAM-related operation.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, the description adds substantial value by explaining that 'user_id' is an 'OCID of the user to retrieve'. This provides crucial semantic context that the schema alone lacks. The description doesn't explain OCID format or where to obtain it, but it meaningfully compensates for the schema's lack of documentation.

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 the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get detailed information') and resource ('about a specific IAM user'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_users' or 'get_group', which provide related but different functionality.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to choose 'get_user' over 'list_users' (which likely returns multiple users) or 'get_group' (which might return group information including users), leaving the agent without context for tool selection.

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