salesforce_read_apex_trigger

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 effectively describes key behaviors: returning full body vs names only based on parameters, wildcard support in patterns, and metadata inclusion. It doesn't mention rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling, but covers the core operational behavior well for a read operation.

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 and appropriately sized. It starts with a clear purpose statement, follows with practical examples, and ends with explanatory notes. Every sentence adds value—no fluff or repetition. The examples are concise and illustrative, making it easy to understand without being verbose.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does a good job of completeness. It explains what the tool does, how to use parameters, and what to expect in return. It could improve by mentioning output format or error cases, but given the context, it provides sufficient guidance for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds value by explaining how parameters interact (e.g., triggerName returns body, namePattern returns names only) and providing usage examples, but doesn't add significant semantic meaning beyond what's in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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: 'Read Apex triggers from Salesforce.' This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from siblings like salesforce_write_apex_trigger (write vs read) and salesforce_read_apex (general Apex vs triggers specifically). However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with salesforce_query_records or salesforce_search_all for data retrieval.

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 usage guidance through examples and notes. It specifies when to use triggerName vs namePattern, when includeMetadata is appropriate, and what happens when no parameters are provided. The examples illustrate different scenarios, and the notes clarify behavioral outcomes, making it clear when to choose this tool over alternatives.

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