scf_system_read

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, so the description only needs to add context. It does add that recipe_status is a queued AI job (inferable polling semantics) but omits permission requirements, pagination, and result limits; the 'viewer role' and return-shape notes appear only in the schema, not the description.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the verb and resource come first and the method list follows. It is dense but compact, though the listed phrases are not verbatim method names, forcing a small mental mapping to the enum.

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 9-parameter multiplexed tool with no output schema, the description is thin: it never says what a call returns or that behavior varies sharply by method, leaving that entirely to the schema's enum text. It is adequate to identify the tool but not to predict responses.

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 100% and every parameter is documented with its applicable methods, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds only a high-level mapping of names to operations ('one system', 'recipe status') and no format, ID-source, or enum semantics beyond that.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Read the systems inventory') and then enumerates the nine sub-operations the tool covers, so an agent can see the full scope without opening the schema. It does not name siblings such as scf_system_write or scf_evidence_read to sharpen the boundary, which keeps it from a 5.

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 enumeration implies which method to pick for a given information need, but there is no explicit when-to-use / when-not-to-use guidance and no routing to alternative tools for overlapping needs (e.g., evidence lookups via scf_evidence_read). The real routing hints ('Poll this after scf_generate_system_recipes', 'obtain from scf_list_system_catalog') live in the schema's enum description, not the tool description.

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