atlas_user_get_by_name

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

No annotations are provided, and the description only states 'Get', implying a read operation. It does not disclose any behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, error handling (e.g., if user not found), or rate limits. The description adds minimal transparency beyond the action itself.

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 extremely concise at four words, with no extraneous information. It is front-loaded and directly conveys the tool's purpose.

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 has two parameters (one required), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too minimal. It does not explain the return value, potential errors, or the behavior of the 'options' parameter. This leaves the agent with insufficient information to fully understand the tool's usage.

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 shows two parameters: 'username' (required) and 'options' (object with description 'Optional parameters'). The description adds meaning by specifying 'by username' for the first parameter, but the 'options' parameter is not elaborated. Schema description coverage is 50%, and the description partially compensates with the verb 'get' implying retrieval.

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 'Get Atlas user by username' clearly states the action (Get) and the target resource (Atlas user) with a specific identifier method (by username). It distinguishes from siblings like 'atlas_user_get_by_id' and 'atlas_user_get_all'.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'atlas_user_get_by_id' or 'atlas_user_get_all'. The description does not mention any context for choosing this tool over others.

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