get_user

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves user details in a readable format, but doesn't cover critical aspects like whether it's a read-only operation (implied by 'get'), authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or what specific details are included. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 appropriately concise with three sentences: purpose, parameter explanation, and return format. It's front-loaded with the main purpose, and each sentence adds value without redundancy. However, the structure could be slightly improved by integrating parameter and return information more seamlessly, but it remains efficient.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (single parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and parameter semantics but lacks details on usage guidelines, behavioral traits, and output specifics. For a simple read operation, this might suffice, but gaps in transparency and guidelines reduce completeness.

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?

The description adds meaningful context for the single parameter 'user_id' by specifying it's for a '特定用戶' (specific user), which clarifies its purpose beyond the schema's basic type (integer). With 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, the description adequately compensates by explaining what the parameter represents, though it doesn't detail format constraints (e.g., valid ranges).

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 purpose: '取得特定用戶的詳細資訊' (Get detailed information of a specific user). It specifies the verb ('取得' - get) and resource ('用戶' - user), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_users' or 'search_users' which might retrieve multiple users or search functionality. The purpose is clear but lacks sibling differentiation.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'list_users' (for listing multiple users) or 'search_users' (for searching users), nor does it specify prerequisites or contexts for use. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and description alone.

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