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 does mention authentication requirements and filtering capabilities, but lacks details about rate limits, pagination behavior beyond the 'top' parameter, error conditions, or what specific data fields are returned in the history records. The description is functional but not comprehensive.

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 clear purpose statement followed by detailed parameter documentation. While somewhat lengthy due to the 10 parameters, every sentence adds value. The front-loaded purpose statement is effective, and the parameter section is organized for clarity.

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 10-parameter tool with no annotations, the description provides substantial context about authentication, filtering, and date formats. The existence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values. The main gap is lack of behavioral details like rate limits or error handling, but overall this is reasonably complete for an audit-focused query 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?

Given 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well by documenting all 10 parameters with clear explanations. It provides format details (ISO date format), optional/required status, default values, and practical examples (e.g., 'DC55', 'DC10'). The only gap is lack of enum values for 'environment' and 'data_center' parameters.

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 specific verbs ('get', 'shows') and resources ('history of role assignments', 'RBP roles to users'). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'get_user_roles' or 'get_rbp_roles' by focusing specifically on the historical audit trail of role assignments rather than current state.

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 like 'get_user_roles' or 'get_rbp_roles'. While it mentions the tool helps with auditing, it doesn't specify scenarios where this historical view is preferable to current-state queries, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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