salesforce_read_apex

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: what gets returned (full body vs names only based on parameters), wildcard support in patterns, default behavior when no parameters provided, and metadata inclusion effects. It doesn't mention authentication needs, rate limits, or error conditions.

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?

Well-structured with purpose statement upfront, followed by numbered examples and bulleted notes. Every sentence adds value: examples demonstrate usage patterns, notes clarify behavior. No redundant information or wasted words.

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-only tool with 3 parameters and 100% schema coverage but no output schema, the description is quite complete. It explains return behavior based on parameters, wildcard syntax, and default cases. The main gap is lack of output format details (what the return structure looks like), which would be helpful since there's no output schema.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value through examples showing how parameters interact (mutual exclusivity implied) and clarifies that className returns full body while namePattern returns names only. However, it doesn't add significant semantic meaning beyond what's already in the 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 clearly states the tool's purpose as 'Read Apex classes from Salesforce' with specific verbs ('read', 'list', 'get') and resource ('Apex classes'). It distinguishes from siblings like salesforce_write_apex (write vs read) and salesforce_read_apex_trigger (classes vs triggers).

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 context about when to use different parameter combinations (e.g., className for full body, namePattern for matching names, includeMetadata for additional info). However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or mention alternatives like salesforce_search_all for broader searches.

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