bw_get_ckf

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

With no annotations provided, the description must convey behavioral traits. It clearly states 'Read' (non-mutating) and enumerates the return payload: technical name, description, formula as string and structured tree, metadata, and dependency graph. It also notes that the formula_tree is passed unchanged to create/update tools, which hints at round-tripping. No side effects or error conditions are disclosed, but for a read operation the described scope is adequate.

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 a single, information-dense sentence that front-loads the purpose ('Read a global CKF') before listing return items. It avoids filler and every clause contributes meaningful detail. Slightly long but efficient; no redundancy.

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 read tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential return contents (technical name, description, formula string/tree, metadata, dependency graph) and notes the compatibility with create/update tools. It does not mention error handling or performance implications, but these are not critical for a read operation. Overall, it provides enough for an agent to invoke and interpret the result.

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 input schema fully describes the single parameter (component_name) with an example and type. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides; it does not elaborate on format, validation, or relationships. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 applies.

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 opens with a specific verb-resource pair: 'Read a global Calculated Key Figure (CKF) defined at CompositeProvider level.' It precisely identifies what is read and where, and distinguishes it from sibling tools like bw_get_rkf (which reads RKFs) by specifying CKF and CompositeProvider scope. The mention of returning a formula_tree that bw_create_ckf and bw_update_ckf accept further clarifies its role.

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 implies usage (read a CKF) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor when not to. It does not reference bw_get_rkf or any other sibling for comparison. The guidance is implicit—an agent can infer it is for reading CKFs, but there is no explicit routing or exclusion.

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