Get User

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a read-only 'get' operation, but it does not disclose any potential errors, required authorization, or behavior for missing IDs. This is minimal but not misleading; it adequately implies a simple fetch without going into edge cases. Given the simplicity, a 3 is appropriate.

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, efficient sentence with no redundancy. It front-loads the core action ('Get') and immediately specifies the resource and criterion. Every word earns its place, making it an exemplar of conciseness.

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 (one parameter, no nested objects, and an existing output schema), the description is sufficiently complete. It does not need to detail return values because the output schema covers that. The only minor gap is the lack of guidance on the distinction from get_current_user, but as a standalone description, it provides enough for correct 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 lists only 'user_id' with an integer type and zero description coverage. The description adds meaning by stating that the profile is retrieved 'by their ID', which clearly implies that the parameter is the user's unique identifier. However, it does not explicitly label it as required or explain its format beyond the type. This partial clarification justifies a 3, falling slightly short of fully compensating for the schema's lack of parameter descriptions.

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 states a clear verb ('Get'), a specific resource ('user's profile'), and the method of selection ('by their ID'). It is precise and unambiguous, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tool get_current_user, which serves a related but different purpose. The phrasing implies the difference, but without an explicit note, it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the alternatives. Notably, get_current_user exists as a sibling and would be the natural choice for the authenticated user, but the description does not mention it or any context that should trigger this tool. It simply states the operation with no when/when-not instructions.

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