sf_retrieve_metadata

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 states the action (retrieve to local files) but does not disclose side effects like overwriting existing files, whether authentication is needed, or if the operation is asynchronous. The description gives a shallow summary without important behavioral traits such as potential error conditions or whether it prompts for confirmation.

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, focused sentence that states the core function without any fluff or redundancy. It is appropriately succinct and front-loaded with the essential action, earning a high score for conciseness.

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?

With 7 optional parameters and no output schema, the description is far from complete. It does not explain the return value, the structure of local files modified, any required Salesforce connection, or how parameters like manifest and metadata interact. Given the tool's complexity, a single sentence is inadequate 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%, and the description itself provides no explanation of any of the 7 parameters. The parameter names (wait, manifest, metadata, directory, sourceDir, targetOrg, packageName) are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds no value in clarifying their roles. Since the description must compensate for the low schema coverage and does not, this scores very low.

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 purpose: 'Retrieve metadata from a Salesforce org to local project files.' It uses a specific verb (retrieve) and resource (metadata) and adds the destination (local project files), which distinguishes it from deploy or list operations. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like sf_list_metadata or sf_deploy_metadata, so it loses one point.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, such as requiring an authenticated org or a specific project structure, nor does it explain when a user would prefer this over sf_deploy_metadata or sf_list_metadata. This lack of usage context leaves the agent to guess.

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