Get a user

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is established. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing exactly what the response includes and, importantly, that no credentials are ever returned because Wiki.js does not expose them. This is useful behavioral transparency for an agent deciding whether this call satisfies an information need.

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 two tight sentences with no filler. The core purpose and key inclusions are front-loaded, and the security-relevant caveat is stated efficiently at the end.

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 one well-documented parameter and a readOnly annotation, the description covers what the call returns, what it includes, and what it deliberately omits. An agent has enough information to invoke it correctly and interpret the result.

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 coverage is 100%, and the single user_id parameter is already documented as the numeric Wiki.js id. The description does not add new parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 identifies both the verb and resource: retrieving full detail for one account. It distinguishes itself from sibling list/search tools by emphasizing 'one account' and specifying included information such as group memberships and two-factor authentication status.

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 phrase 'one account' implies this tool is for single-user lookup rather than listing or searching, but the description never explicitly names alternatives like list_users or search_users. The usage context is clear enough to infer, but there is no direct when-to-use versus when-not-to-use guidance.

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