get_available_sfra_documents

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes what the tool returns (a list of documentation) and its purpose (discovery, understanding architecture), but does not disclose behavioral traits like whether it's read-only, if it requires authentication, rate limits, pagination, or error handling. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.

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, starting with the core action and purpose. The second sentence elaborates with specific examples, and the third emphasizes importance. While efficient, the final sentence ('Essential for understanding...') could be considered slightly redundant with the first, but overall it's well-structured with minimal waste.

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 (simple list retrieval with 0 parameters) and lack of annotations/output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It explains what the tool does and why to use it, but without annotations or output schema, it should ideally disclose more about the return format (e.g., structure of the list, data types) or behavioral constraints to fully compensate for missing structured data.

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 has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter information is needed. The description appropriately adds no parameter details, focusing instead on the tool's purpose and output. This meets the baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools, as it avoids unnecessary repetition of schema information.

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 specific action ('Get a list') and resource ('all available SFRA documentation'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'get_sfra_document' (singular) or 'get_sfra_documents_by_category' (filtered). It explicitly lists examples of what's included (classes, modules, models), making the purpose highly specific and differentiated.

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 ('to discover what SFRA classes, modules, and models are documented' and 'Essential for understanding SFRA architecture'), but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among the many sibling tools. The implied usage is strong but lacks explicit exclusions.

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