user_get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by explaining the domain concept of a user (auth credentials, permission levels), which helps an agent understand the shape of returned data. However, it doesn't address behaviors like default output='extend' potentially returning large payloads or whether system/built-in users are included.

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?

Three tight sentences with the core purpose front-loaded. There is no filler or repetition. The only minor critique is that the entity explanation, while useful, is slightly expository for a tool description; a note on result size or paging behavior could have earned a 5.

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?

With strong annotations (readOnly, idempotent), an output schema, and rich schema descriptions, the description's job is lighter. That said, given the scalar-context signal of offset pagination with total counts, a one-liner about large result sets or default output='extend' behavior would have meaningfully improved usability. It's adequate but not exemplary.

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 coverage is 89%, so the schema already documents 8 of 9 parameters with meaningful descriptions (e.g., the Zabbix 5.4 alias→username note, pagination guidance with has_more/total). With high schema coverage, the baseline of 3 applies and the description correctly doesn't duplicate parameter info. The description adds nothing parameter-related, but none is needed given the schema's thoroughness.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource: "Get users from Zabbix," which clearly states the operation. The two follow-up sentences add helpful domain context about what a user is in this system (people with access, credentials, permission levels). It doesn't explicitly name sibling tools for differentiation, but the read-vs-write distinction from user_create/user_update/user_delete is immediately obvious.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. There's no mention of pagination strategy despite offset/limit params, no note about when get is preferred over create/update, and no exclusions or caveats. An agent must infer usage entirely from the name and schema.

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