get_user

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently states this is a public profile endpoint, lists the specific return fields, and explicitly calls out the email exclusion. While it does not mention authentication requirements or side effects, the public-read nature of the tool makes these omissions acceptable.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the verb and resource ('Get a GitFlic user's public profile'), then immediately lists return fields and the email limitation with an alternative tool. Every sentence earns its place.

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 single-parameter lookup tool, the description fully covers purpose, inputs, outputs, and key exclusions. The output schema is absent, but the description compensates by naming the return fields. It also differentiates from the most relevant sibling (get_me), completing the context.

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 coverage is 100% with the userAlias parameter already described as 'User alias (username)'. The description reinforces this by saying 'by their alias (username)', but adds no new semantic detail beyond what the schema provides. 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 clearly states the tool's function: getting a GitFlic user's public profile by alias, and enumerates the returned fields (name, avatar, cover image). It distinguishes itself from the sibling get_me tool by explicitly noting the email exclusion, making its scope 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 provides explicit usage guidance by stating what the tool does not return (email) and directly recommending an alternative tool (get_me) for the authenticated user's email. This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use context relative to a key sibling.

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