Get OmniStudio DataRaptor

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds context by specifying the content of the returned configuration (type, field mappings, filter criteria), but it does not disclose the return format, error behavior, or any side effects. With annotations in place, this is acceptable but not enriched beyond the basics.

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, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the action and resource, then elaborates with specific content types. Every word adds value; no filler or 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 one-parameter read-only tool with no output schema and good annotations, the description is nearly complete. It explains what is retrieved, and the absence of optional parameters or complex behaviors means little is missing. A return format hint would elevate it, but given the simplicity, the coverage is strong.

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 schema covers 100% of parameters: dataRaptorName is described as 'API name of the DataRaptor to retrieve'. The description adds no further detail about parameter semantics, such as case sensitivity or uniqueness. Since schema coverage is full, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Retrieves the configuration of a DataRaptor interface' and specifically lists its contents (type, field mappings, filter criteria). This distinguishes it from sibling creation/import/export tools and other get tools targeting different resources. The verb+resource combination is precise.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention related tools like sf_create_dataraptor or sf_import_omnistudio_component, nor does it state any prerequisites or context where this getter is preferred. The description implies a read operation but offers no exclusions or alternative recommendations.

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