bookstack_users_read

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states this is a read operation ('Get details'), implying it's non-destructive, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or what happens if the user ID doesn't exist. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.

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, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and includes relevant scope details. Every word earns its place without redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

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 (single required parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks context on usage, behavioral traits, or output format. Without annotations or output schema, the agent must infer behavior from the description alone, which is insufficient for full understanding.

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 single parameter 'id' fully documented in the schema as 'User ID to retrieve'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying the tool retrieves details for a specific user, which is already clear from the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 details') and resource ('a specific user') with additional scope ('including their roles and permissions'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'bookstack_users_list' (which lists users) and 'bookstack_users_create/update/delete' (which modify users). However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'bookstack_permissions_read' which might overlap in permissions information.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a user ID), when not to use it, or how it differs from 'bookstack_users_list' for listing users or 'bookstack_permissions_read' for permissions. Usage is implied by the name and description but not explicitly stated.

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