get_user

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

Describes return fields in detail (username, email, roles, status, etc.) and explains their significance (e.g., 'status: active vs suspended'). Includes security audit use cases. Annotations already indicate read-only, and description reinforces safety with behavioral context.

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?

Well-structured with sections and bullet points. Every sentence adds value, though somewhat lengthy. Front-loaded with purpose. Could be slightly more concise, but structure aids readability.

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?

Despite no output schema, description provides thorough coverage of return fields, use cases, and workflow. Complements high schema coverage and readOnlyHint annotation. Complete enough for an agent to understand what the tool does and how to use it.

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?

Input schema covers both parameters with descriptions. Description adds no new parameter-level detail beyond schema. Baseline 3 for high schema coverage (100%). Description compensates slightly by explaining return fields that relate to the 'fields' parameter, but not enough to exceed baseline.

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?

Clearly states 'Get detailed information about a specific user by their ID in LogicMonitor (LM) monitoring.' Differentiates from sibling tools like list_users (find user ID) and update_user (modify). Purpose is specific and unambiguous.

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?

Explicitly lists when to use: review permissions, check last login, verify contact, audit before modification, API token management. Provides workflow: use list_users to find userId then this tool. Mentions related tools for context.

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