knowbe4_users_get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It describes what data is returned but doesn't disclose behavioral details like what happens for a non-existent/invalid user ID, whether this is a read-only operation, permission requirements, or response format. It is a 'get' operation which implies non-destructive read, but with zero annotations the burden is on the description to say so explicitly.

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, efficient sentence that packs the key purpose and data fields without waste. It doesn't list every returned field but summarizes the most important ones. Well-sized for its 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 single-ID lookup tool with full schema coverage and clear sibling distinction, the description is largely sufficient. It lists key returned data elements which helps an agent know what to expect. Minor gaps: no mention of error handling for invalid IDs and no explicit read-only claim since annotations are absent, but these are minor for a simple get tool.

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 100% (the single user_id param is documented with 'The user ID to retrieve'). The description confirms the ID-based lookup purpose but doesn't add meaning beyond the schema since the schema already covers the single parameter adequately. Baseline 3 applies given full coverage.

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 verb (get), the resource (specific KnowBe4 user by ID), and provides specific detail fields (risk score, phish-prone percentage, training status, group memberships). It distinguishes from siblings like knowbe4_users_list (which lists users) and knowbe4_users_risk_score_history (which is history-focused).

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 implies this is for retrieving a single user's details as opposed to the list endpoint (knowbe4_users_list), but it doesn't explicitly state when to choose this vs alternatives or mention any exclusions. The context is reasonably clear given the sibling naming, but there's no explicit guidance about when-not-to-use or preferred alternatives for different needs.

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