get_user

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds that it returns a 'full profile' and requires a workspace_id, which provides some context beyond the annotations. However, it does not disclose response format, error behavior, or any side effects, though given the read-only hint, the bar is lower.

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 very concise, with two sentences and no filler. The purpose is front-loaded, and the workspace_id tip is a useful addition. However, it could be slightly better structured if user_id were also addressed, but overall it is appropriately brief.

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 simplicity (get by ID) and the presence of annotations for read-only safety, the description covers the basics. However, it lacks differentiation from sibling user-fetching tools, omits user_id semantics, and does not describe the return value structure since there is no output schema. More guidance on when to choose this tool over similar ones would improve 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains workspace_id by suggesting a source for valid values (list_workspaces()), but it does not mention user_id at all, despite the description implying 'by ID'. The user_id parameter remains entirely undocumented in the description, and the schema only provides type and title, which is minimal. The description adds some value for workspace_id but not for user_id.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Get a user's full profile by ID.' It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on a single user fetch by ID, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives. The phrase 'full profile' adds specificity.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_workspace_users or check_user_exists_by_email. It does offer a helpful tip for obtaining workspace_id via list_workspaces(), but that is about parameter sourcing, not usage context. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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