user_get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that users have authentication and permissions, which is contextual but not behavioral. No side effects or rate limits are mentioned. The description does not contradict 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?

The description is concise with three sentences: one for purpose, two for context. No unnecessary words. It earns its place without repetition.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (read-only, no required parameters, output schema exists), the description provides adequate context. The schema covers parameters and pagination. The description could mention return format but the output schema handles that. Slightly above adequate.

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 89%, so most parameters are well-described. The description does not add additional semantics beyond what the schema provides (e.g., limit, offset, search). Baseline score of 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 'Get users from Zabbix', specifying a verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like user_create, user_delete, and user_update by indicating this is a read operation. Additional context about users having authentication and permissions further clarifies the resource.

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 the tool is for retrieving users but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., user_create for creation). No when-not-to or exclusions are provided. The readOnlyHint annotation partially fills this gap, but the description itself lacks direct guidance.

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