salesforce_get_record

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add useful behavior details: fields is optional, and if omitted the tool returns all accessible fields. This helps the agent understand default behavior. However, it does not mention read-only guarantees, permission requirements, error behavior for invalid IDs, or handling of inaccessible fields, which would be valuable for a no-annotation tool.

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 compact and well-structured. The one-line summary is front-loaded, followed by a clean Args section that maps directly to the parameters and a Returns section. Every sentence adds information; there is no filler or repetition.

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 relatively simple get-by-ID tool, the description covers the essential invocation surface: parameters, formats, optional behavior, and return content. The existing output schema likely covers the detailed response shape. The only notable gap is the absence of explicit guidance on when not to use this tool and what exception cases look like, but overall the description is sufficient for correct selection and 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 input schema provides only raw property names with no descriptions, so the description fully compensates. It explains that sobject is a Salesforce object type with concrete examples, record_id must be an 18-character Salesforce ID, and fields is an optional list with a clear default behavior. This is exactly the semantic enrichment the schema lacks.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get a single Salesforce record by ID.' It clearly identifies the operation, the object type, and the unique identifier, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like query or bulk operations that retrieve multiple records. The purpose is unambiguous and immediately actionable.

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 tool's intended use is implied clearly: when you have a specific SObject type and a Salesforce record ID and need one record. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer this tool over alternatives like salesforce_query or salesforce_get_object_fields, and it offers no exclusions or caveats. The guidance is functional but not explicit enough for a 4.

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