gitflic_user_get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered elsewhere. The description adds nothing beyond them: it does not mention that responses are slimmed by default, that a raw view exists, or what happens on an unknown alias. It does not contradict the annotations.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler, which is efficient. However, its brevity crosses into under-specification rather than disciplined concision, leaving nothing to orient an agent beyond the verb and key.

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 read this is thin: there is no output schema, and the description never says what a "user" record contains or that the default response is slimmed and can be widened via raw or narrowed via fields. The annotations cover safety but not the shape of the result, so an agent must guess at the return value.

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 coverage is 67%: raw and fields are self-documented in the schema, while alias carries no schema description and the phrase "by alias" supplies its meaning as the lookup key. So the description covers exactly the one gap in the schema and adds nothing about the response-shaping parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate at this coverage level.

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?

"Get a user by alias" states a specific verb (get) and resource (user) plus the lookup key, which is more than a tautology of the tool name. It stops short of 5 because it never distinguishes itself from siblings such as gitflic_user_me or gitflic_user_search, so the agent must infer which user-fetch path to take.

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 offers no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no pointer to alternative tools for related needs like fetching the current user (gitflic_user_me) or searching users. The only implied guidance is the required alias, which the schema already enforces.

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