User Detail

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the agent knows it is a safe read operation. The description adds specific detail about returned data (traits, session history, activity summary) beyond annotations, without contradiction.

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 a single sentence that is clear and to the point. It could be improved by structuring the list of returned items, but it is not verbose or wasteful.

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 get operation with no output schema, the description lists what is returned (traits, session history, activity summary). However, 'activity summary' is somewhat vague. It does not mention pagination or limits, but that is less critical for a single-user lookup.

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 100%: both siteId and userId have descriptions. The tool description does not add new parameter meaning beyond repeating that siteId is numeric/domain and userId can be identified_user_id or internal ID. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb 'Get' and resource 'specific user' with explicit inclusions of traits, session history, and activity summary. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like rybbit_get_user_traits (only traits) and rybbit_get_session (single session).

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use is provided. The description implies the need for a user ID but does not mention alternatives such as rybbit_get_user_traits for just traits. Usage context is implied but not clarified.

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