scan_agentforce

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

The description discloses the output format (SARIF-structured violations) and enumerates the covered categories, providing useful behavioral context. However, since no annotations are provided, it does not explicitly state whether the tool is read-only, requires authentication, or has side effects. The 'scan' wording implies non-destructive but is not explicit.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action, and the second sentence provides a compact but informative enumeration of categories. No filler—every element contributes to understanding the tool.

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?

The description covers scope and output but omits guidance on when to choose this full scan versus file/rule-specific scans, and lacks side-effect/safety characteristics. Given the tool's complexity and lack of annotations, more context would help, but the schema adequately covers parameter semantics.

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%, with both directory and baseBranch explained in the schema. The tool description adds no parameter-specific details beyond the schema, but this is acceptable given the high coverage. The phrase 'current project' aligns with the directory default.

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 runs the full Agentforce Capability Scan, specifies 26 SAST rules across 9 categories, and enumerates the categories. This distinguishes it from siblings like scan_agentforce_file and scan_agentforce_rule, which are narrower in scope.

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 a full-scan use case but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like scan_agentforce_file or scan_agentforce_rule, nor does it mention when diff-based scanning via baseBranch would be preferred. Guidance is only implicit ('full... scan').

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