config_describe_user

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Get user details' without mentioning whether it returns the full user configuration, requires specific permissions, or how it behaves for nonexistent users. The output schema may cover return values, but the description adds no 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?

The description is extremely concise at four words and front-loaded with the verb, but it is under-specified. It essentially restates the tool name without providing additional structured context, making it minimally acceptable rather than well-rounded.

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 three parameters, an output schema, and a large sibling set, the description is too sparse to be complete. It fails to explain the tool's context, when to use it, or any edge-case behavior. The output schema covers return values, but the description lacks the necessary surrounding context.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It does not mention instance_id, user_id, or region, nor explain their roles or relationships. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but no additional semantic detail is provided.

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 user details.' clearly uses the verb 'get' with the resource 'user details', indicating a read operation for a specific user. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like config_list_users or config_describe_contact_flow, though the singular 'user details' suggests a single-user lookup.

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 versus alternatives. It does not mention when to prefer config_describe_user over config_list_users, nor does it state any preconditions or exclusions.

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