get_user

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only says 'Get details' without explaining what details are returned, whether the operation is read-only, how missing or invalid IDs are handled, or whether both supervisor and interviewer identifiers are accepted. The behavioral disclosure is minimal.

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 a single sentence with no redundancy or filler. Every word contributes to stating the core function, and it is appropriately sized for a simple lookup tool.

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 has no output schema and no annotations, so the description should cover return expectations and parameter roles. 'Get details' is too vague about what an agent should expect, and the profile parameter is entirely undocumented. The description is adequate at a high level but incomplete 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It maps 'by ID' to user_id, which is helpful, but the optional 'profile' parameter is completely unexplained. An agent has no clue what values profile accepts or what effect it has on the response.

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 ('Get'), a resource ('details for a supervisor or interviewer user'), and the lookup method ('by ID'). It clearly describes what the tool does, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the closely related sibling tools get_supervisor and get_interviewer.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus get_supervisor or get_interviewer, nor any mention of prerequisites or exclusions. The phrase 'by ID' implies the intended use case, but the agent is left to infer when the generic get_user is preferred over the role-specific siblings.

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