asana_get_user

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

Annotations already state readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond returning fields. It does not contradict annotations. The description clarifies the default 'me' resolution and the output fields. With annotations providing safety profile, the bar is met but not exceeded.

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?

Two short sentences, no filler. The key info—what is fetched and default behavior—is front-loaded. Every word earns its place.

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?

Given the simple tool, no output schema, and clear annotations, the description covers the essential usage. It could mention that opt_fields overrides the default fields, but that is also in the schema, and the description's coverage is sufficient 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and both parameters are described. The description does not add extra semantics beyond what the schema provides. The default 'me' is already noted in the schema description. Baseline 3 applies.

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 it fetches one user by GID with a default 'me' and returns name, email, and GID. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling asana_list_users, but the specific resource (single user vs list) is evident. The verb 'Fetch' and resource 'one user' are specific enough.

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 usage by indicating how to specify the user (GID or 'me') and mentions the default. It does not explicitly state when to prefer this over asana_list_users or when not to use it. However, the default 'me' and single-user scope signal the use case of retrieving a specific or current user.

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