get_ulp_user

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It proactively states 'Read-only', which is critical behavioral context. It also explains the composite ID format for host, giving the agent necessary operational detail. It does not mention error handling or required permissions, but for a simple read operation this is sufficient.

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 compact and information-dense. Every sentence serves a purpose: the first declares the operation and endpoint, the second defines host, and the third defines ulp_user_id with a cross-reference. No filler or redundancy.

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 that an output schema exists, the return format is already documented. The description covers both parameters fully, states the read-only nature, and provides a cross-reference to the sibling list tool. Nothing essential for an agent to invoke this correctly is missing.

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 does so thoroughly: for host it details the three valid formats, and for ulp_user_id it marks it as REQUIRED and gives a precise origin ('Obtain it from list_ulp_users (its id field)'). This adds meaning far beyond the bare schema definitions.

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 specifies a clear verb ('Get'), a specific resource ('one ULP user'), and the identifying parameter ('by id'). It also includes the explicit HTTP endpoint, which unambiguously defines the operation. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_ulp_users, which lists users rather than fetching a single one.

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 concrete usage guidance: it explains the host parameter's accepted formats (console name, ID, or composite ID) and explicitly instructs the agent to obtain ulp_user_id from list_ulp_users. It does not explicitly exclude alternative tools like get_user or get_protect_user, but the context is clear enough for correct selection.

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