get_iam_user

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the required auth scope 'iam:users:read' and notes that it retrieves 'active' users. It does not mention potential errors or return value characteristics, but for a simple get operation, this is adequate.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that concisely states the purpose and the required auth scope. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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 simple get-by-ID tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what action is performed, what resource is retrieved, how to identify it, and a key behavioral constraint (auth scope). It is complete enough for an agent to use correctly.

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 descriptions for all parameters. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond 'by UUID' and 'organisational level', which are already implied by the parameter names and schema descriptions. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 action 'Get', the resource 'single active user', the identifier 'UUID', and the scope 'organisational level (IAM v1)'. It effectively distinguishes from siblings like list_iam_users and add_iam_user.

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 indicates when to use the tool (to get a single active user by UUID) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives. However, the context of 'single' vs 'list' implies the sibling distinction.

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