confluence_get_user

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

With no annotations, the description bears full burden. It correctly identifies read-only behavior (get user details) but does not disclose what happens if the account ID is invalid or missing, or any error conditions.

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 concise, with two clear sentences plus an args list. It front-loads the core purpose and avoids extraneous words.

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 simple lookup tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the basics: what it does, what it returns, and the parameter. It could be more complete by specifying output structure explicitly, but the hints are sufficient.

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?

The parameter description adds context ('as seen in version history, comments, etc.') beyond the schema property name, indicating where to find the ID. However, it does not provide format, length, or examples.

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 that the tool gets user details by account ID, and specifies the returned information (display name, email, profile info). It distinguishes from sibling tools as no other tool resolves user details.

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 mentioning 'account ID (as seen in version history, comments, etc.)', guiding when to use it. However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives, though no obvious alternative exists.

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