get_sfcc_class_documentation

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the output as 'complete raw documentation' with 'examples, detailed descriptions, and full context,' which gives some behavioral insight into what the tool returns. However, it lacks details on potential errors, rate limits, authentication needs, or response format, leaving gaps for a tool with no annotations.

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 concise and well-structured, consisting of two sentences that efficiently convey purpose and usage guidelines. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it easy to understand quickly.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate context for a simple read operation with one parameter. It explains the tool's purpose and when to use it, but lacks details on output format, error handling, or behavioral traits, which could be important for completeness in this context.

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 100% description coverage, with the parameter 'className' documented as 'The SFCC class name.' The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score 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's purpose: 'Get the complete raw documentation for an SFCC class.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('documentation for an SFCC class'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like 'get_sfcc_class_info' or 'search_sfcc_classes' beyond mentioning 'complete raw documentation' versus 'basic class info.'

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 on when to use this tool: 'when you need comprehensive details about a class including examples, detailed descriptions, and full context' and 'when the basic class info isn't sufficient.' It implies an alternative (e.g., 'basic class info' likely refers to sibling tools), but doesn't explicitly name specific alternatives or state when not to use it.

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