sf_read

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 explains the three read modes and their parameters but does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only, nor does it disclose potential side effects, required permissions, API limits, or error handling behavior.

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 extremely concise and well-structured, using bullet points to separate read_type options and providing clear examples. Every sentence adds value, and the format is easy to scan.

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 moderate complexity (6 parameters, 1 required, no output schema), the description covers the core functionality well. It explains all read modes and their dependencies. However, it lacks information about the return format (e.g., JSON structure) and any implicit constraints (e.g., connection prerequisites).

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 coverage is high (83%), and the description adds significant value beyond the schema by providing concrete examples for each read_type, showing how to combine parameters like id, fields, soql, and limit. It clarifies the purpose of each parameter in context.

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 'Read Salesforce records' and enumerates three distinct read_type options (by_id, query, describe) with examples. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that perform create, update, delete, or other operations on Salesforce or other platforms.

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 explicit guidance on when to use each read_type, including required parameters for each mode and examples. However, it does not contrast this tool with other read tools (e.g., jira_read, sn_read) or specify scenarios where this tool should not be used.

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