List Toolsets

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: the server keeps most of its 228 tools unloaded to save context, and unloaded tools are invisible until their toolset is loaded. This explains a non-obvious tool-listing behavior agents need to understand.

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 front-loaded: it states the primary function first, then adds necessary context about unloaded tools and a usage trigger. Each sentence contributes a distinct piece of information with no redundancy or filler.

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 zero-parameter listing tool, the description is fully sufficient. It specifies what is listed, why some tools are not visible, and when to call it. The output schema is absent, but the description already enumerates the returned information: toolset names, tool counts, and load state.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the schema is fully covered and parameter semantics are moot. Per the calibration baseline, a zero-parameter tool receives a 4, and the description correctly focuses on behavior and output rather than inventing parameter detail.

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: 'Lists every available Salesforce toolset,' and adds what is returned: tool counts and current loaded state. It also distinguishes itself from sibling sf_load_toolset by explaining that unloaded tools do not appear in the tool list until the toolset is loaded.

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 a clear trigger for use: 'Call this when you need a capability you cannot see.' It also explains the context of unloaded toolsets and directs the agent toward loading via sf_load_toolset, but it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare it directly to sibling tools like sf_find_tool.

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