jira_user_get

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral disclosure. It discloses the YAML return format, GDPR-related email redaction, stub records with an `error` field for unknown/anonymised/permission-denied IDs, the fact that the batch never fails, and that deactivated accounts resolve normally with `active: false`. This covers edge cases and error handling unusually well.

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 efficiently structured and front-loaded with the core action. Every sentence contributes unique value: purpose, output format, batching, error behavior, and command mirror. No words are wasted, and the sequence flows logically from what to how.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It explains the return fields, error handling, GDPR redaction, and batch behavior, covering all likely agent needs without requiring the output schema. It also ties to sibling tools and the underlying `omni-dev` command for additional 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% and the schema already describes `account_ids` with an example. The description adds the batching guidance ('Pass every distinct author ID from a batch in one call'), which is more of a usage note than a semantic clarification. No additional meaning beyond the schema is needed, so the 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 opens with a specific action: 'Resolve one or more Atlassian account_ids to user records', clearly identifying both the resource and the operation. It explicitly contrasts with the sibling `jira_user_search` by positioning itself as 'the reverse', making the tool's role unmistakable.

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 gives clear usage context: it is for resolving known account IDs to user records, and it advises batching every distinct author ID into one call. It notes the reverse relationship with `jira_user_search`, implying when each is appropriate, though it doesn't explicitly state an exclusion scenario (e.g., 'use `jira_user_search` if you need to search by name').

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