scan_agentforce_file

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the operation ('scan for capability violations') and lists supported file types, but it does not explicitly confirm read-only behavior, side effects, permission requirements, or return format. 'Scan' implies non-destructive intent, but the absence of explicit assurances or error-handling notes leaves gaps. The supported file type list adds value, but not enough to score higher.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the core action, then follows with a compact enumeration of supported file types. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's scope and purpose, with no redundant or filler content. It is concise yet comprehensive for its intended use.

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 adequately covers what the tool does and which files it accepts, but omits important contextual details for a tool with no output schema and no annotations. It does not explain what 'capability violations' look like in the output, whether an empty result indicates no violations, or any prerequisites (e.g., being in a Salesforce DX project). The relative path detail is implied by the schema, not the description. These gaps leave an agent uncertain about interpreting the result, so completeness is only moderate.

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 documents filePath as 'Path to the metadata file to scan (relative to project root)' with 100% coverage. The description adds significant value by explicitly listing the supported file extensions (e.g., .genAiFunction-meta.xml, .cls, .trigger), which tells the agent acceptable values for filePath and reduces ambiguity. This goes beyond the schema's generic description, justifying a score above the baseline of 3.

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 specific action: 'Scan a specific Agentforce metadata file for capability violations.' It also lists the supported file types, which distinguishes it from the broader sibling 'scan_agentforce.' This is a specific verb+resource with clear 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 provides clear context: this tool is for scanning a single, specific metadata file, and it enumerates supported file types. While it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, the wording implies use-case (targeted file scan) and differentiates from sibling tools like scan_agentforce. This is enough to guide appropriate usage.

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