scf_user_read

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuinely useful behavioral fact beyond them: the identity returned is the API key's identity, meaning there is no parameter to target another user — an agent could otherwise waste calls trying to pass a user id. It does not mention pagination behavior beyond the limit param or response size.

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-loaded with the scope constraint before the method list, with no filler. 'Pick with method' is mildly instructional and repeats what the required enum already makes obvious, which keeps it from a 5.

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 small, read-only, three-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers scope, identity semantics, and the mode selector adequately. Minor gaps remain around result ordering/pagination across the modes, but nothing essential to invoking it correctly is missing.

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% and the method enum descriptions are far richer than the tool description (work queue contents, notification types such as risk_acceptance_expired). The description adds no syntax, format, or default details beyond what the schema already states, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb ('Read') and a clearly bounded resource ('the caller's own view'), then names the three variants: current user, work queue, notifications. This implicitly separates it from org- or entity-scoped siblings like scf_org_read, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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?

'Pick with method' tells the agent how to choose among the three modes, but that routing is already fully enumerated in the method schema description. There is no guidance on when to use this instead of sibling reads (e.g., scf_org_read for organization data) or instead of scf_mark_notifications_read when handling notifications.

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