bb_get_user

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that only public information is returned and that private profiles may have limited fields, which is useful context. However, it omits other behavioral aspects like authentication requirements, return format, or error handling, leaving gaps for a no-annotation tool.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the main action, and includes the fallback and caveat without any fluff. Every sentence earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 lookup tool, the core purpose and a key caveat are covered, but given the existence of sibling bb_get_current_user, the description lacks guidance on when to use which tool. With no output schema and no annotations, the description also does not mention return value structure or authentication expectations, leaving the agent partially uninformed.

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 has 100% description coverage for all three parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description text adds little beyond what the schema already explains—'by username or UUID' is redundant with the selected_user parameter description. It does not clarify the filter or output_format beyond the schema.

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 retrieves public Bitbucket user information by username or UUID, satisfying the verb+resource requirement. It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling bb_get_current_user, despite both being able to return the authenticated user, so it 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 mentions that omitting the user returns the authenticated user, but it never explicitly tells when to use this tool over the sibling bb_get_current_user. No alternatives or exclusions are provided, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.

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