Get a Scaleway IAM User

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds behavioral context by specifying what fields the response includes: 'status, type, locked, MFA flags'. This is a useful elaboration beyond the raw annotations, letting the agent know the breadth of data returned. No description of rate limits or auth is given, but for a simple read operation the annotations suffice.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence: 'Read one human User by id - full profile incl. status, type, locked, MFA flags.' Every word adds value – the verb, the target, the uniqueness ('one'), and the specific fields. No wasted text, perfectly scoped.

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 rich annotations, the description is complete. It covers what the tool does, what data it returns, and the required input. It doesn't explain return format, but no output schema exists and the behavior (returning a user object) is straightforward. The sibling list of users provides the ID workflow, which is implicitly referenced via schema description.

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 input schema provides 100% coverage with a single required parameter 'user_id' that already includes a description: 'User ID from list_users.' The description adds no further parameter details, but the schema already links it to list_users for discovery. Since schema coverage is perfect and the description reinforces the parameter's role, this is slightly above the baseline of 3.

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 uses the specific verb-resource pair 'Read one human User by id' and immediately clarifies scope: 'full profile incl. status, type, locked, MFA flags'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like scaleway_iam_list_users (which lists users) and scaleway_iam_update_user (which modifies). A single, focused tool for getting a detailed user profile.

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 this is the tool to use when you need a complete profile of a single IAM user, identified by user_id. The sibling context includes list_users for obtaining that ID, so an agent can infer the workflow. There are no explicit exclusions or mentions of when not to use it, but the purpose is clear enough that an agent would choose this over a list or mutation tool.

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