Claude Certified Architect Foundations CCA-F Exam Questions

Question #11 (Topic: Demo Questions)

A team is building an MCP server that integrates with Salesforce. Their tool catalog includes:search_contacts, get_contact_by_id, update_contact, create_opportunity, get_opportunity_pipeline,update_opportunity_stage, generate_report, and send_email. This is 8 tools. During testing, Claudeoccasionally picks the wrong tool (e.g., search_contacts when get_contact_by_id is more appropriate).What improves tool selection accuracy?

Add detailed descriptions that clearly differentiate each tool's purpose with usage guidance: e.g.,'search_contacts: Use when you need to FIND contacts by name, email, or company. NOT forretrieving a known contact (use get_contact_by_id instead)'

Reduce to 4 tools by combining related operations

Add a tool_router tool that Claude calls first to determine which tool to use

Rename tools with numbered prefixes: tool1_search, tool2_get, etc.

Correct Answer: A

Explanation:

The root cause of Claude picking the wrong tool is ambiguity in tool descriptions — Claude can't clearly distinguish when to use one over another. Detailed descriptions with explicit usage guidance and negative examples ("NOT for X, use Y instead") directly solve this.

Here's why each option stands:

A ? — Add detailed, differentiating descriptions This is exactly what Anthropic's prompt engineering guidance recommends for tool selection. The example given is ideal because it:

States the specific trigger condition ("when you need to FIND contacts")
Adds a negative example that steers away from the wrong tool ("NOT for retrieving a known contact")
Cross-references the correct alternative ("use get_contact_by_id instead")

This is low-effort, zero architectural change, and directly targets the failure mode observed in testing.

B ? — Reduce to 4 tools by combining operations Merging tools trades one problem for another. A combined search_or_get_contact tool now pushes the disambiguation problem inside the tool call — Claude has to pass a parameter that decides behavior, which is harder to get right and makes tool behavior less predictable. You also lose the clarity of single-responsibility tools.

C ? — Add a tool_router tool This adds latency (an extra round trip on every invocation), burns tokens, and is redundant. The whole point of well-written tool descriptions is that Claude already performs routing natively. Adding a meta-tool to do what descriptions should do is an architectural antipattern that compounds the problem rather than fixing it.

D ? — Rename with numbered prefixes tool1_search, tool2_get conveys zero semantic meaning. Tool names and descriptions are how Claude understands intent — making names less descriptive makes selection worse, not better. This solves nothing.

« Prev Page: 3 / 3