aism_user_get

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/ idempotent/ non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds the required scope ('Requires users:read'), which is genuine operational context an agent needs before calling. It does not add further behavior (error cases, missing-id handling), keeping it below a 5.

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?

A single short sentence with the permission requirement trailing, zero padding, and the key scoping fact ('one user account') front-loaded.

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 two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, equivalence to the list output, and the required scope. A hint about behavior for an unknown id would make it fully complete.

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 50% – the 'site' parameter is documented in the schema, but 'id' has no description there. The description implies 'id' identifies the single user being read, which partially compensates, but adds no format or constraint detail beyond that.

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?

States a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('one user account') and clarifies the payload matches aism_users_list, which lets an agent distinguish it from the list sibling. The phrase 'for review' adds mild ambiguity but the core purpose is 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?

Implicitly contrasts with aism_users_list by saying it returns one account, so an agent can infer 'single lookup vs. enumeration'. However, there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of alternatives like aism_users_list by name, and no prerequisites beyond the permission.

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