salesforce_backup_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the tool's behavior: checking status of backup jobs, monitoring running/completed/failed operations, and parameter usage. However, it lacks details on authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or response format. For a status-checking tool with no annotations, this is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 and well-structured: two sentences that efficiently cover purpose, usage, and parameter guidance without redundancy. Every sentence adds value, and it's front-loaded with the core purpose. No wasted words or unnecessary details.

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 moderate complexity (status monitoring with one parameter), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally complete. It explains what the tool does and how to use parameters but lacks details on authentication, response structure, or error conditions. For a tool in a Salesforce context with siblings, it could benefit from more contextual guidance.

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 schema fully documenting the single optional parameter 'job_id'. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema: it reiterates that no parameters show all jobs and specifying job_id gives detailed status. This aligns with the schema but doesn't provide additional semantics like format examples or edge cases. 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: 'Check the status of Salesforce backup jobs' with specific verbs ('check', 'monitor') and resource ('backup jobs'). It distinguishes from sibling 'salesforce_backup' (which likely initiates backups) and 'salesforce_backup_list' (which might list backup configurations rather than job status), though not explicitly named. The purpose is specific but could be more explicit about sibling differentiation.

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 usage: 'Use without parameters to see all jobs, or specify a job_id to get detailed status of a specific backup job.' This gives practical guidance on when to use each parameter mode. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'salesforce_backup_list' or mention prerequisites (e.g., authentication).

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