security-get-user-by-identity

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves a user by name, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify if it returns full user details, what happens if the user doesn't exist (e.g., returns null vs error), or any authentication/authorization requirements. This leaves significant behavioral gaps for a security-related tool.

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 no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple lookup tool and front-loads the core action ('Get a Sitecore user').

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 security context, lack of annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address key aspects like return format (e.g., user object with fields), error conditions, or security implications (e.g., if it reveals sensitive data). For a tool with one parameter but in a sensitive domain, more context is needed.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It only mentions 'by its name' for the 'identity' parameter, which adds some semantic context (that 'identity' likely refers to a username), but doesn't specify format constraints (e.g., case sensitivity, domain prefixes like 'sitecore\\username'), examples, or whether it accepts email addresses or other identifiers. This partial compensation is insufficient for full clarity.

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') and resource ('a Sitecore user'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'security-get-user-by-filter' or 'security-get-current-user', which serve similar user retrieval purposes with different approaches.

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 when to prefer this tool over 'security-get-user-by-filter' (which might allow broader searches) or 'security-get-current-user' (which retrieves the authenticated user), nor does it specify prerequisites like authentication requirements.

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