salesforce_time_machine_query

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool's capabilities (queries, comparisons, history tracking) but lacks critical behavioral details: it doesn't specify whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, how results are returned (e.g., format, pagination), or any rate limits. For a complex query tool with 8 parameters, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: a single sentence states the core purpose, followed by a second sentence listing key operations. Every sentence earns its place by conveying essential information without redundancy or fluff. It's efficient and well-structured.

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 (8 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It covers the purpose and high-level operations but misses behavioral context (e.g., read/write nature, permissions, output format) and doesn't compensate for the lack of annotations or output schema. For a tool that queries historical data with multiple operation types, more guidance is needed.

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 8 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema: it mentions 'point-in-time queries, comparisons, and record history tracking,' which loosely maps to the 'operation' enum values, but doesn't provide additional syntax, format, or usage details for parameters. 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: 'Query historical Salesforce data from backups using Time Machine functionality.' It specifies the verb ('query'), resource ('historical Salesforce data'), and mechanism ('Time Machine functionality'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'salesforce_query' or 'salesforce_backup_list' beyond mentioning 'historical' data.

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 listing supported operations ('point-in-time queries, comparisons, and record history tracking'), which helps identify when to use this tool. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives like 'salesforce_query' (for current data) or 'salesforce_backup_list' (for backup metadata), nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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