SF-MCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states this is a read operation ('Get all', 'Lists all') but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication requirements (implied by parameters but not explicitly stated), rate limits, pagination, error conditions, or what 'all' means in practice (e.g., whether it returns all roles at once or requires pagination).

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?

Well-structured with a clear purpose statement, bullet-point examples, and a dedicated Args section. The description is appropriately sized (7 sentences) and front-loaded with the core functionality. Minor redundancy exists (e.g., 'Get all' and 'Lists all' are repetitive).

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 no annotations, 6 parameters with 0% schema coverage, and an output schema present, the description does well on parameters but lacks behavioral context (authentication needs, rate limits, pagination). The output schema likely covers return values, so that gap is acceptable, but for a tool with authentication parameters and no annotations, more operational guidance would help.

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 meaningful context for all 6 parameters: explains 'instance' as company ID, 'data_center' with examples, 'environment' with enum-like values, clarifies auth parameters as 'required', and describes what 'include_description' does. 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 verb ('Get all') and resource ('Role-Based Permission (RBP) roles in the instance'), with specific examples of role types (admin, HR, manager, employee self-service). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_user_roles' by focusing on system-wide security roles rather than user-specific assignments.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_user_roles' or 'get_permission_metadata'. The description mentions listing 'all security roles' but doesn't specify use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions relative to sibling tools.

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