Get User Manager

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the required delegated permission (User.Read.All), which is useful, but it does not disclose what is returned, error conditions, or behavior when the user has no manager. The description lacks sufficient behavioral detail beyond the permission statement, falling short of full transparency.

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 and front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by a permission note and localized Chinese intents. The Chinese intents add value for multilingual support, though they slightly lengthen the text. Overall, it is appropriately sized and clear without unnecessary fluff.

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 is simple (one optional param, no output schema), and the description covers its core purpose and permission requirement. However, it does not explain what the returned manager data looks like (e.g., ID, displayName), which would be helpful since no output schema exists. This gap prevents it from being fully complete.

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 has a single optional parameter with a complete description: 'User ID or UPN. Omit to query the signed-in user.' Schema description coverage is 100%, so the description does not need to add parameter details. The baseline of 3 is maintained since the schema handles the semantics and the description does not provide additional value beyond that.

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 the tool gets the manager of the signed-in user or another organization user. The verb 'Get' and resource 'manager' are specific, and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like users_get_profile and users_list_direct_reports by targeting the manager relationship.

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 provides clear context: it can be used for the signed-in user or another user, with the param 'Omit to query the signed-in user' in the schema. It also notes the required permission, but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. This is a clear context without exclusions, so a 4 is appropriate.

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