get_sfra_document

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 mentions the tool 'supports all 26+ SFRA documents' and lists categories, but doesn't describe key behaviors like whether it's read-only, what the output format is (e.g., JSON, markdown), error handling, or performance considerations. For a tool with no 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 moderately concise but could be more front-loaded. The first sentence clearly states the purpose, but subsequent sentences repeat similar ideas (e.g., 'Perfect for implementing SFRA-based features') and the list of document types adds bulk without critical information. Some trimming could improve focus without losing value.

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 (retrieving detailed documentation), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It covers purpose and usage well but misses behavioral details like output format, error cases, or dependencies (e.g., referencing 'get_available_sfra_documents'). For a documentation retrieval tool, more context on what to expect is needed.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'documentName' well-documented in the schema. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by listing example document names (e.g., 'server', 'cart', 'product-full') and mentioning categories like 'core classes' and 'models', but doesn't provide additional semantics or usage tips for the parameter. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 complete SFRA class, module, or model documentation with detailed information about properties, methods, and usage examples.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('SFRA documentation'), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'get_sfcc_class_documentation' or 'search_sfra_documentation' beyond listing supported document types.

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: 'Use this when working with SFRA controllers, middleware, models, or when you need to understand how SFRA components work together. Perfect for implementing SFRA-based features.' It gives practical scenarios but doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among siblings.

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