salesforce_read_apex_trigger

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals a safe read operation, but the description goes far beyond that by explaining return behavior differences: triggerName returns the full body, namePattern returns names without body, includeMetadata adds extra fields, and wildcards are supported. This is exactly the kind of behavioral context an agent needs and is not present in the annotations.

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-structured with a one-line summary, numbered examples, and bulleted notes. It is slightly longer than strictly necessary, but every section contributes useful context and the front-loaded summary ensures quick understanding. It earns a 4, not a 5, due to some redundancy between the examples and notes.

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?

All relevant operational details are covered: the effect of each parameter, the default behavior when neither parameter is given, wildcard syntax, and metadata options. There is no output schema, so the description appropriately clarifies what the tool returns (full body vs. names vs. metadata). Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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?

Even though schema coverage is 100%, the description enriches the parameters with relational semantics: the mutual interaction between triggerName and namePattern, the optionality of includeMetadata, and the wildcard behavior. The examples concretely map JSON inputs to outcomes, adding value beyond the plain schema descriptions.

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-resource pair: 'Read Apex triggers from Salesforce.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like salesforce_write_apex_trigger and salesforce_read_apex, and the examples reinforce the resource being acted on. The tool's 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 gives clear conditional guidance for parameter combinations (when triggerName is provided, when namePattern is provided, when neither is provided), which effectively tells an agent how to invoke the tool for different intents. However, it does not explicitly mention when to choose this tool over sibling tools, so it stops short of a 5.

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