scf_get_cdm_document_map

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces this with 'read — viewer role' and 'Get'. It adds useful behavioral context by explaining what the map contains (per-domain coverage, silent corpus areas) and the role requirement, going beyond the structured annotation.

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 compact and front-loaded with the tool's core behavior. The final sentence 'Finds documentation gaps' is largely redundant with 'where the corpus is silent,' but the overall structure is efficient and readable.

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 single-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description conveys the essential semantics: what the map shows, what it is used for, and the required role. It lacks explicit return-format details, but given the tool's simplicity and annotation coverage, it is adequately complete.

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%: org_id is fully described, including where to obtain it. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level semantics, so 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 identifies the tool as retrieving the CDM document map, with specific semantics: per-domain coverage of ingested documents mapped to SCF domains and identification of silent areas. This distinguishes it from related sibling tools like scf_list_cdm_mappings or scf_list_cdm_documents by emphasizing coverage and gap analysis.

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 gives clear context: this is a read-only operation for a viewer role that finds documentation coverage gaps. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the purpose is specific enough that usage context is clear.

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