sf_limits

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility. It discloses that the tool 'Returns exact numbers' and implies read-only behavior via 'Look up', but it does not mention authentication needs, error handling, or the return format in more detail. This is basic transparency but not thorough.

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 short sentences that immediately state the purpose and what the tool returns. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately conveys the core function and output type (exact numbers). However, it leaves minor gaps: it does not specify the response structure (e.g., JSON object) or behavior for invalid feature values, which is noticeable given the absence of annotations.

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 covers the 'feature' parameter with a descriptive list of examples (100% coverage). The description repeats some of these examples but adds no new semantic detail about parameter syntax or constraints, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 function with a specific verb ('Look up') and resource ('Salesforce governor limits and platform constraints'). It differentiates itself from sibling tools like sf_search or sf_explain_error by focusing on numerical limits.

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: use this tool when you need exact numbers for governor limits. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools, though the strong purpose makes the usage context obvious.

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