Get Current Zendesk User

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint, covering the safety and mutation profile. The description adds the scope that this returns the authenticated user and a use case, but says nothing about auth requirements, rate limits, or return shape. With annotations doing the heavy lifting, a 3 is appropriate.

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 core action and followed by a brief use case. No filler or repetition; every sentence earns its place.

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, zero-parameter read tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description gives the agent everything needed: what it retrieves, whose identity it targets, and why one would call it. No critical details are 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the rubric sets the baseline at 4. The schema is empty and the description introduces no additional parameter semantics, which is acceptable for a no-argument tool.

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 clear verb and resource ('Get the currently authenticated Zendesk user'), and the 'currently authenticated' scope inherently distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_user or search_users. However, it does not explicitly name an alternative, so it falls short of a 5 under the rubric.

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?

Provides a clear use case: 'Useful to verify identity and permissions.' This tells the agent when to reach for the tool, but it does not state when not to use it or name alternatives such as get_user, so it lacks exclusion guidance.

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