salesforce_read_apex_trigger

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

The description explains that reading a specific trigger returns the full body, while pattern matching returns only names. It mentions metadata inclusion. No annotations are provided, but the description covers the tool's read-only nature and key behaviors. It could mention error handling or authentication requirements.

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 well-organized with a main statement, numbered examples, and bullet-point notes. Every sentence serves a purpose, and the structure aids readability. No unnecessary content.

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 read tool with 3 optional parameters and no output schema, the description fully explains the different return behaviors based on input combinations. It covers all parameters and their interactions, making the tool self-explanatory for selection.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, the description adds significant value by explaining the interplay between parameters: e.g., when triggerName is provided, full body is returned; when namePattern is provided, only names are returned. It also clarifies the effect of includeMetadata and wildcard support.

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 it reads Apex triggers from Salesforce, with specific options for reading by name, pattern, or listing all. It distinguishes from siblings like salesforce_read_apex (general Apex) and salesforce_write_apex_trigger (write operation).

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 usage patterns with examples showing when to use triggerName vs namePattern vs includeMetadata. However, it does not compare to alternative tools like salesforce_query_records or indicate when not to use this tool.

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