sf_get_username

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, requires authentication, makes network calls, or has any side effects. The phrase 'Resolve' suggests a lookup but lacks behavioral context such as what happens on failure or whether it modifies state.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource. It contains no extraneous words and is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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?

Given the tool has 3 optional parameters, no schema descriptions, no output schema, and no annotations, this minimal description is insufficient. It does not explain the meaning of the parameters, the return value format, or any edge cases. The description only covers the basic purpose, leaving significant gaps for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'target org or default target org', which gives a hint about targetOrg and defaultTargetOrg but does not define them clearly. The 'directory' parameter is entirely unexplained. No parameter semantics are added beyond the parameter names.

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 ('Resolve') and resource ('username and alias for a target org or default target org'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like sf_list_all_orgs, which lists orgs, and the various access/query tools. The purpose is 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 description implies usage when needing the username and alias for a specific target org or the default org, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this over alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. There is no direct guidance on when not to use it or comparison with sibling tools.

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