yaaif_user_get

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the disclosure burden, and it does add one concrete behavioral fact: the operation requires the users:read scope. It does not disclose error or not-found behavior, return format, or whether lookups are exact-match, leaving the behavioral picture partial.

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?

Two short sentences front-load the core operation first and the permission requirement second, with no filler or repetition. Every word carries information.

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-one tool, the description covers the action, the tenant-user scope, the lookup keys, and the required permission, which is enough to invoke it correctly. The main omissions (not-found behavior, explicit sibling routing) are secondary for this complexity, though an output schema would have added certainty.

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 provides zero parameter descriptions, so the description must compensate; it does map both schema properties to the lookup mechanism and signals that id and email are alternative identifiers. It leaves ambiguity about whether both can be supplied together, which takes precedence, and whether at least one is required.

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 uses a specific verb-plus-resource ('Get one tenant user') and states the lookup criteria ('by id or email'), so it clearly describes a fetch-one operation rather than a list, create, or update. It does not explicitly name or contrast a sibling like yaaif_user_list, so it stops short of full 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 use case is implied: call this when you have a user_id or email and need a single tenant user. However, no alternative tool is named and no exclusion conditions are given, so the agent must infer when this is preferred over yaaif_user_list or other user-scoped tools.

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