scan_agentforce_rule

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the operation is read-only, what the output looks like, or if any side effects occur. For a tool that would be used by an agent, this lack of transparency is a significant gap.

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 with no wasted words. The first sentence states the action, the second adds context about rule ID format and a concrete example. Every sentence 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?

For a simple single-parameter tool without an output schema, the description covers purpose, rule ID format, and usage context. However, it lacks details about the output/results (e.g., violations found) and prerequisites (e.g., project setup), which would help the agent know what to expect after invocation.

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 already has 100% coverage with example rule IDs. The description adds the pattern 'AGENTFORCE-X.Y' and maps AGENTFORCE-1.1 to 'Mandatory User Confirmation', providing valuable semantic context beyond the schema's examples. This enhances the agent's understanding of the parameter.

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 a specific action ('Run a single Agentforce SAST rule') and resource ('against the project'), distinguishing it from siblings like scan_agentforce (likely all rules) and scan_agentforce_file. The verb is specific and the scope is explicit, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 phrase 'Useful for focused analysis' provides clear when-to-use context, implying this tool is for running one specific rule rather than a full scan. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the focus on 'single rule' effectively differentiates from broader scan tools.

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