Ler usuario

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, lowering the bar. The description still adds value by disclosing that the returned payload varies by context: public fields by default, bio and mutual servers 'em modo user', and nickname/roles/join date when guildId is supplied. It omits auth/rate-limit context, but the conditional data exposure is genuinely useful beyond the annotations.

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 dense sentences that lead with what data is returned and then layer the conditional variants. No filler, though the phrasing around 'modo user' is terse enough to be slightly ambiguous.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of explaining returns, and it does list the principal fields per mode. It is nearly complete for a read tool, with only the exact shapes and 'modo user' semantics left somewhat implicit.

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 100%, and every parameter (format, userId, guildId) is documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces guildId's effect on returned fields but adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema already provides.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Dados publicos de um usuario') and enumerates the returned fields, so the agent knows exactly what is fetched. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings, but no sibling reads user profile data, so the risk of confusion is low.

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 conditions by describing the guildId and 'modo user' variants, letting the agent infer when member data versus public data is returned. However, it never states when to prefer this tool over alternatives or any prerequisites, so guidance is only implicit.

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