sf_read_topic

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states the tool reads a file and optionally extracts a section, which implies a non-destructive operation, but it doesn't disclose details like return format or behavior when the topic is not found. The description is minimal but not misleading.

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 sentences long, front-loaded with the main purpose, and each sentence adds value. It includes a usage hint and optional behavior without unnecessary detail.

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 read tool with no output schema, the description is adequate: it states the purpose, prerequisite, and optional section extraction. It does not explain the return value, but that is fairly self-evident for a read operation. Minor gaps like error handling are not critical for this complexity.

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 all parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds little beyond what the schema already provides, only restating the optional section parameter. It does not clarify beyond the schema's examples.

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 action ('Read') and the resource ('a specific Salesforce documentation topic file'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by specifying that it reads a specific topic, and it even references sf_search for finding the topic, which contrasts with searching.

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: 'Use sf_search first to find the domain and topic ID.' This tells the agent the prerequisite for using this tool. It doesn't explicitly discuss alternatives or when-not cases, but the context is clear enough for typical usage.

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