SF-MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a 'Get' operation (implying read-only) but doesn't explicitly confirm it's non-destructive. It mentions authentication parameters are 'required' but doesn't describe error handling, rate limits, or what the output contains beyond 'mapping technical IDs to human-readable labels.' For a tool with authentication requirements, more behavioral context is needed.

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 and appropriately sized. The first paragraph states the purpose, the second adds context, and the 'Args:' section clearly documents parameters. While efficient, the 'Args:' formatting is slightly verbose compared to integrating parameter details into flowing text, but all content 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?

Given the tool has an output schema (which handles return values), no annotations, and 6 parameters with 0% schema coverage, the description does well on parameters but lacks behavioral context. It covers authentication needs and the mapping purpose but doesn't address error cases, performance, or how this metadata integrates with RBP analysis. For a security-related tool with authentication, more completeness would be beneficial.

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 fully compensate. It provides clear semantics for all 6 parameters: 'instance' (SuccessFactors instance/company ID), 'data_center' (SAP data center code with examples), 'environment' (environment type with examples), 'auth_user_id' (SuccessFactors user ID for authentication), 'auth_password' (SuccessFactors password for authentication), and 'locale' (locale for labels with default). This adds substantial value beyond the bare schema.

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: 'Get the mapping of permission type labels for RBP security analysis.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('mapping of permission type labels'), and context ('for RBP security analysis'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'get_user_permissions' or 'get_role_permissions' which focus on user/role-specific permissions rather than metadata mappings.

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 the tool helps 'understand what permission categories exist in the system,' but doesn't specify scenarios where this metadata is needed (e.g., before analyzing permissions) or contrast it with related tools like 'get_rbp_roles' or 'get_role_permissions' that might provide overlapping or complementary data.

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