Get User

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden but discloses almost nothing: it does not state whether elevated permissions are required, what identifies a miss (null vs error), or how the optional include alters the response payload.

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?

A single tight sentence with the retrieval key front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though arguably too terse to be maximally useful given the total absence of surrounding structured docs.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be re-explained, and the two parameters are at least gestured at. But for a tool with zero annotations and zero schema descriptions, the definition leaves behavioral expectations and the include format unstated.

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, and it partially does—'by ID' maps to uid and 'relationship includes' maps to include. However, it never specifies the accepted format for include (comma-separated, nested, JSON:API-style), leaving the key detail undocumented.

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?

States a specific verb (Get) and resource (user) with a retrieval key (by ID), which implicitly separates it from list_users and get_user_by_email. It does not, however, explicitly name or contrast itself with those siblings.

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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no reference to alternatives like get_user_by_email when only an email is known. Usage must be fully inferred.

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