Get a user (full: roles, teams, rights)

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the transparency burden. It discloses the returned data components (roles, teams, permissions, rights), but it does not mention potential errors (e.g., user not found), authentication requirements, or any side effects. Since this is a read operation, the transparency is adequate but not rich.

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, well-structured sentence. It front-loads the action and resource ('Fetch a user by id') and then lists the included data. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.

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 fetch tool with only 2 parameters and no output schema, the description provides a reasonable overview of the returned data (UserFull). However, it omits clarification of the optional 'organization' parameter and does not indicate the output format or any limitations. The description is adequate but not complete given the lack of annotations and output schema.

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 has 0% description coverage for parameters. The description mentions 'by id' but does not clarify that 'userId' is the required parameter or explain the optional 'organization' parameter. Without additional context, an agent may not know how to set the 'organization' field or whether it affects the lookup.

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 action ('Fetch a user by id') and defines the scope: roles, team membership, document-type permissions, and effective rights (UserFull). This distinguishes it from siblings like wflow_list_users, wflow_whoami, and wflow_find_users_with_right by specifying the exact data returned.

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?

Usage is implied: use when you need full details for a specific user by ID. However, the description does not provide explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites (e.g., needing a user ID from a list or search).

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