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 mentions authentication requirements and includes_inactive parameter, but doesn't cover important aspects like rate limits, error handling, response format, pagination, or whether this is a read-only operation. For an 8-parameter tool with authentication needs, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 clear sections: purpose explanation, parameter documentation, and common examples. While comprehensive, some sentences could be more concise (e.g., 'Picklists are used throughout SuccessFactors for dropdown fields' could be combined with the first sentence). Overall, it's appropriately sized for an 8-parameter tool with complex authentication requirements.

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 (8 parameters, authentication requirements) and the presence of an output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It thoroughly documents parameters and provides context about picklist usage. However, it could better address behavioral aspects like authentication scope, error conditions, or performance characteristics to be fully comprehensive for this type of enterprise API tool.

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 description provides excellent parameter semantics despite 0% schema description coverage. It explains each parameter's purpose with examples (e.g., picklist_id examples like 'ecJobFunction', data_center codes like 'DC55'), clarifies required vs optional parameters, provides default values, and even includes a helpful list of common picklists with their meanings. This fully compensates for the lack of schema 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 with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('values for a specific picklist'), and distinguishes it from siblings by explaining picklists are for dropdown fields in SuccessFactors. It provides essential context about data validation and understanding available field values, making the purpose unambiguous.

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. While it mentions picklists are used throughout SuccessFactors, it doesn't specify scenarios where this tool is preferred over other data retrieval tools like get_employee_profile or query_odata. There's no mention of prerequisites or constraints beyond the required parameters.

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