get_user

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It provides none beyond the verb 'Get', which merely repeats the tool name; it does not mention outdated parameters, authentication needs, response shape, or side-effect safety.

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 technically short, but this is under-specification rather than efficient conciseness. The two words 'Get user' do not earn their place because they add no information beyond the tool name.

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?

With four parameters, two of them deprecated, no required parameters, and no output schema, this description is far from complete. An agent cannot tell how to identify the user, what optional behaviors expand accepts, or what the response will look like.

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%, so the schema already documents all four parameters, including deprecation notes and the meaning of accountId. The description itself adds no parameter-level meaning, but the baseline of 3 applies because the structured schema is sufficient.

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 'Get user' is a near-verbatim restatement of the tool name and provides no additional specificity. It does not indicate what kind of user data is returned, how the user is identified, or how this differs from sibling tools like find_users.

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 guidance on when to choose get_user over find_users, find_bulk_assignable_users, or get_issue_watchers. The description contains no context, prerequisites, or exclusions, so an agent receives no help in routing between alternatives.

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