get_sfcc_class_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It adequately describes the tool's behavior as a read-only information retrieval tool ('Get detailed information'), but lacks details about rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or response format. The mention of 'SFCC Rhino environment' provides some context, but behavioral specifics are minimal.

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 with three sentences that each serve distinct purposes: stating the tool's function, providing usage guidelines, and specifying target use cases. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids redundancy. Minor improvement could be made by slightly tightening the cartridge development examples.

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 tool with 8 parameters, 100% schema coverage, but no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate context about when and why to use the tool. However, it lacks information about the response format, error handling, or performance characteristics that would be helpful given the tool's complexity and lack of output schema.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's already documented in the schema. It mentions the general purpose ('detailed information about an SFCC class') but provides no additional context about parameter usage, interactions, or best practices.

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 with specific verbs ('Get detailed information') and resources ('SFCC class'), and explicitly distinguishes it from siblings by focusing on class details rather than listing (list_sfcc_classes), searching (search_sfcc_classes), or documentation (get_sfcc_class_documentation). It identifies the exact information returned: properties, methods, and description.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('when you need to understand what a specific SFCC class does, what methods/properties are available, or when implementing features that use SFCC APIs') and includes specific use cases ('Essential for cartridge development...'). It implicitly distinguishes from siblings by focusing on detailed class analysis rather than broader searches or listings.

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