get_user_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The verb 'get' implies a read operation, but the description does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive, requires authentication, or has any side effects. It also does not mention potential response size or performance characteristics. This is a minimal disclosure that does not go beyond the verb itself.

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, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the action and resource, then enumerates what is included. There is no extraneous information, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 getter with no parameters and no output schema, the description adequately communicates what the tool returns (complete user info including personal details, plan, settings). It does not mention response format or potential caveats, but given the simplicity, it is largely sufficient. It does not explicitly state that it is read-only, which would be helpful, but that falls under behavioral transparency.

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?

The input schema has zero parameters, so there is nothing to document. Per the rubric, with 0 parameters the baseline is 4. The description correctly makes no parameter claims, and the high schema coverage (100%) means the schema is complete. No additional semantic explanation is needed.

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 verb 'Get', the resource 'user account information', and enumerates the included details (personal details, plan, settings). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_snippet or get_quota, which target specific resources. It is specific and 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?

The description implies usage when user account info is needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or preconditions. With siblings like get_quota and list_workspaces, an agent might infer context, but the description provides no explicit routing guidance.

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