aap_get_user

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

The annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds that it returns a string in JSON format, but provides no additional behavioral context such as error handling, authentication requirements, or what happens if the user ID does not exist. This is acceptable for a simple read-only get tool, but the description does not go beyond the annotations.

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 concise and well-structured, with a clear one-sentence purpose followed by an 'Args' section and a 'Returns' line. It avoids unnecessary wording and is easy to scan.

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 get-by-id tool with one parameter, read-only annotations, and a stated JSON return format, the description is nearly complete. It could be improved by noting error behavior (e.g., 404 if user not found) or what fields are included in the JSON response, but with no output schema visible, the description gives enough for basic invocation.

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 schema has one parameter (user_id) with a description 'User ID', type integer, and minimum 1. The description repeats 'user_id (int): User ID' without adding any new meaning such as how to obtain the ID, its format beyond int, or domain-specific context. With schema description coverage at 0% according to context signals, the description should compensate but does not.

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 function: 'Get details of a specific AAP user by ID.' It uses a specific verb ('Get'), names the resource ('AAP user'), and indicates the key identifying parameter ('by ID'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like aap_list_users or aap_update_user.

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 usage is implied: it is for retrieving a single user by their ID. However, the description does not explicitly contrast with alternatives (e.g., use aap_list_users to search or list users) or provide any when-to-use / when-not-to-use guidance. The context is clear from the tool name, but no explicit alternatives are given.

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