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 a default locale, but lacks details on rate limits, error handling, response format, or whether this is a read-only operation, leaving significant gaps for a tool with 7 parameters.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by usage context and parameter details. The Args section is structured but slightly verbose; every sentence earns its place, though it could be more streamlined.

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 (7 parameters, no annotations) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, and parameters adequately. However, it lacks behavioral details like safety or performance, which are important for a tool with authentication and multiple inputs.

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 adds meaningful semantics for all 7 parameters, explaining their purposes (e.g., 'SAP data center code', 'Environment type', 'Locale for labels') and noting required authentication fields, which goes 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 with specific verbs ('Get all permissions') and resources ('for a specific user across all their assigned roles'), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'get_user_roles' or 'get_role_permissions' by focusing on the complete permission set rather than roles or metadata.

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 clear context for when to use this tool ('Useful for answering "What can this user do?"'), but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives among siblings, such as 'get_user_roles' for role-level information instead of permissions.

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