salesforce_learn

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 discloses key behavioral traits: it performs analysis and creates local documentation, implying a read-only or data-gathering operation without explicit mutation. However, it lacks details on permissions required, execution time, rate limits, or what 'local documentation' entails (e.g., format, location), leaving gaps in behavioral context.

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 front-loaded, consisting of two sentences that directly state the tool's purpose and usage guidelines without unnecessary details. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information, making it efficient and well-structured for quick understanding.

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 complexity (analyzing a complete Salesforce installation) and the absence of both annotations and an output schema, the description is somewhat incomplete. It covers the high-level purpose and timing but lacks details on output format, error handling, or dependencies (e.g., requiring authentication via salesforce_auth). This leaves gaps for an AI agent to fully understand the tool's behavior and results.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, with all three parameters well-documented in the input schema (force_refresh, include_unused, detailed_relationships). The description does not add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining interactions between parameters or default behaviors. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles 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 ('analyzes', 'creates') and resources ('complete Salesforce installation', 'local documentation of all objects, fields, and customizations'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like salesforce_describe or salesforce_query by focusing on comprehensive documentation creation rather than specific queries or descriptions.

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 explicit guidance on when to use the tool ('run once after initial setup to enable intelligent assistance'), which gives clear context for its primary use case. However, it does not specify when not to use it or mention alternatives among the sibling tools, such as when to choose salesforce_describe instead for less comprehensive analysis.

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