n8n_get_user

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it specifies access control ('Only available to instance owner'), describes return content ('user profile including role and account status'), and hints at a use case ('verify user details before role changes'). No contradictions with annotations exist.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by access restrictions, return details, and usage guidance in three concise sentences. Each sentence adds distinct value without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured for quick comprehension.

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's low complexity (one parameter, no output schema) and rich annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint), the description is largely complete. It covers purpose, access, return values, and usage context. A minor gap is the lack of explicit error handling or rate limit info, but overall it provides sufficient guidance for an agent.

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%, with the parameter 'identifier' fully documented in the schema as 'User ID or email address'. The description adds no additional parameter details beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints, so it meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 clearly states the specific action ('Get detailed user information'), resource ('user'), and method ('by ID or email'), distinguishing it from siblings like n8n_list_users (which lists multiple users) and n8n_update_user_role (which modifies roles). It provides a precise verb+resource combination that avoids vagueness or tautology.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('to verify user details before role changes'), which implies an alternative like n8n_update_user_role for role changes. It also specifies access restrictions ('Only available to instance owner'), providing clear context for usage versus other user-related tools.

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