SF-MCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses authentication requirements and pagination behavior ('top' parameter with default and max), which adds useful context. However, it lacks details on rate limits, error handling, or response format, leaving behavioral gaps for a tool with authentication and data retrieval.

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 well-structured with a purpose statement followed by a parameter list. Each sentence adds value, but the parameter explanations could be more integrated into the flow rather than a separate 'Args:' section. Overall, it is appropriately sized and front-loaded.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (authentication, multiple parameters) and the presence of an output schema, the description is largely complete. It covers authentication needs and parameter meanings, though it could benefit from more behavioral context. The output schema likely handles return values, reducing the description's burden.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides clear semantics for all 6 parameters: explains what 'instance', 'data_center', 'environment', 'auth_user_id', 'auth_password', and 'top' represent, including examples and constraints. This fully addresses the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'List all dynamic permission groups in the instance.' It specifies the verb ('List') and resource ('dynamic permission groups'), and adds context about their use in RBP. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_rbp_roles' or 'get_permission_metadata', which prevents a score of 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions that dynamic groups are used in RBP, but does not specify scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions. With many sibling tools related to permissions and roles, this lack of differentiation is a significant gap.

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