get_user

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered, and the description adds essentially nothing beyond it. It does not say what happens when the login/uid is unknown, whether the result is cached or rate-limited, or what fields come back.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is appropriately sized for the operation, though it is sparse enough that brevity shades into under-specification.

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 trivial one-parameter read with no output schema, the description is minimally adequate: the agent knows what to pass and that it is a read. It omits the return shape and error behavior for an invalid identifier, which would be the only useful additions.

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?

With one parameter at 100% schema coverage and an example value in the schema, the baseline is 3. The description's 'by login or uid' restates the schema description rather than adding format or validation detail.

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 clear verb (get) and resource (user) with a lookup key (login or uid). This implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling list tools get_users and get_users_relative and the self-scoped get_current_user, but it never names them, so the differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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 guidance and no alternatives are named, despite siblings (get_users, get_current_user, get_users_relative) that an agent could easily confuse with this one. The only hint is the singular 'user info', which leaves the agent to infer that this is a single-user lookup.

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