salesforce_installation_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the tool as a read-only operation ('Returns comprehensive information'), which is appropriate, but lacks details on performance characteristics (e.g., response time for large installations), error handling, or data freshness. It adds some context about the scope of information returned but doesn't fully compensate for the absence of annotations.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Returns comprehensive information') and efficiently lists the key components. There's no wasted verbiage, and every phrase adds value by specifying the scope of data returned.

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 complexity of a 7-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the tool's purpose and data scope well, but doesn't address behavioral aspects like response format, pagination, or error conditions. For a metadata retrieval tool with rich parameters, more context on output structure would be beneficial.

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 the schema already documents all 7 parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining interactions between parameters or providing usage examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 with specific verbs ('Returns comprehensive information') and resources ('Salesforce installation, including all object details, field specifications, relationships, permissions, and customizations'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like salesforce_query or salesforce_describe by focusing on 'learned installation data' rather than live operations.

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 implies usage context by specifying 'learned installation data,' suggesting it should be used for metadata retrieval rather than live Salesforce operations. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like salesforce_describe or salesforce_setup, and doesn't mention prerequisites such as needing prior learning via salesforce_learn.

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