Get User

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered elsewhere. The description adds nothing beyond that — no mention of what happens with an invalid or deleted ID, no note about the open-world lookup, and no behavioral context for the `include` expansion.

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?

A single short, front-loaded sentence with zero padding. It is efficient, though its brevity borders on under-specification rather than genuine conciseness.

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?

With only one terse sentence for a tool that has an output schema, an enum parameter, and a dense set of near-identical siblings, the description leaves real gaps: no sibling disambiguation, no mention of the `include` sideloading behavior, and no hint about the returned payload shape. Adequate only for the simplest possible call.

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%, so the schema already explains `id` (including the `{id}` path mapping and the no-`user_id` warning) and the `include` enum. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond "by id" and never acknowledges the `include` expansion parameter, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Retrieves a specific user by id"), so the agent immediately knows what it does. However, it offers no differentiation from the many closely-named siblings such as get_current_user, list_users, get_user_email_addresses, or get_user_phone_numbers.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The phrase "a specific user by id" weakly implies the precondition (you already have an ID), but the description never routes the agent to get_current_user for self-lookup or list_users when searching, which is the main confusion risk given the sibling set.

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