Get user

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It adds useful context by tying the identifier choice to the API version/deployment type, but it does not disclose response shape, error behavior, authorization requirements, or what happens if both or neither parameter is supplied.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently packs the core lookup semantics and deployment/API mapping together.

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 two-parameter read operation, the description is mostly sufficient, but with no output schema or annotations it leaves gaps around return payload, error handling, and parameter cardinality. It is adequate but not fully complete.

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 input schema already documents both parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description's 'or' adds a mutual-exclusion cue that is not explicit in the schema, but it does not clarify whether exactly one parameter is required or how conflicts are resolved.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Get a user') and clarifies the lookup mechanism ('by account ID' or 'username'), including deployment/API-version mapping. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_current_user and find_users by implying a direct lookup of a known user, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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 gives clear context about which identifier to use based on Jira deployment (Cloud/API v3 vs Data Center/API v2), which helps an agent call it correctly. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over related siblings such as get_current_user or find_users, nor what to do when no identifier is available.

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