get_user

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

Annotations already declare the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no new behavioral context beyond restating the purpose, such as what fields are returned, error conditions, or authentication requirements, which could be expected for a read tool without an output schema.

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 short sentence with no redundant words. It front-loads the action and resource clearly, making it easy to scan and understand immediately.

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 read tool with rich annotations covering safety and idempotency, the description is mostly sufficient. 'Details' is somewhat vague about the return payload, but given the low complexity and clear parameter, the agent has enough to invoke it correctly; a more explicit description of return fields would be nice but not essential.

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% since the only parameter, user_id, is described as 'User ID'. The description does not add any extra meaning about the parameter (e.g., that it must correspond to an existing user), so the baseline score of 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?

The description uses the verb 'Get' with a specific resource 'details about a specific user', which clearly states the operation. It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'get_users' by emphasizing 'specific', implying a single user lookup rather than a list operation.

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 phrase 'specific user' implies this is for retrieving a single user by ID, contrasting with the plural 'get_users', but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like 'create_user' or 'update_user'. The usage context is only implied, not spelled out.

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