sf_apex_lookup

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 states the search scope ('class documentation, methods, and signatures') but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, what the return format looks like, how errors are handled, or any limits (e.g., pagination). This is similar to the update_drive example where a mutation with no annotations received a 2 due to missing 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 two concise sentences, with the first stating the primary action ('Look up an Apex class or method by name') and the second scoping the search domain. Every word is purposeful, and there is no unnecessary repetition or fluff.

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?

For a simple two-parameter lookup tool with a well-documented schema, the description adequately indicates what it does and its domain. However, there is no output schema, and the description does not explain return values or provide guidance on when to use this tool over the many siblings. Adding a note about alternatives or result format would improve completeness.

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 input schema already provides complete descriptions for both parameters (className and namespace), yielding 100% schema coverage. The description does add the concept of 'look up by name', which aligns with className, but it does not provide extra semantic detail beyond the schema. Thus the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('look up') and resource ('Apex class or method'), and explicitly scopes the search to the 'apex-reference domain' for 'class documentation, methods, and signatures'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like sf_object_reference or sf_search, which target different domains or generic searches.

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 for Apex reference lookups by specifying that it searches the apex-reference domain, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives such as sf_search or sf_object_reference, nor does it mention any exclusions or when not to use it. Usage guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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