query_dmc_sfcs

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It adds the required workflow of compiling a report and calling send_report_to_teams, which is useful behavioral context. However, it lacks details on read-only nature, pagination, rate limits, or authentication.

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 with a single sentence and a clear required workflow instruction. It is front-loaded with the tool's purpose, though the workflow addition could be integrated more seamlessly.

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 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is somewhat complete. It adds the required workflow but fails to explain return format, behavior of filters, or handling of default values, leaving gaps for an AI agent.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions; it merely restates filter criteria (e.g., 'Filter by SFC ID/number').

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 queries Shop Floor Control records (SFC table) representing individual production lots/units. The verb 'query' and resource 'SFC records' are specific, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like query_dmc_boms or query_dmc_orders by focusing on SFC.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The phrase 'Specialized tool' implies focus on SFC records, but there is no when-not-to-use or comparison to siblings like get_production_orders or query_dmc_orders.

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