get_cloudforce_one_query

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state the read-only nature explicitly, required permissions, error behavior for unknown query IDs, rate limits, or what fields the 'details' response contains. Only the verb 'Get' hints that this is 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 a single five-word sentence with no filler and the verb is front-loaded. However, the brevity reflects under-specification rather than efficient trimming; useful context about selection and return values was omitted rather than deliberately excluded.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should clarify what a Cloudforce One query is, what the returned details contain, and how this tool differs from the many Cloudforce One siblings. The 100%-covered schema handles parameter documentation, but the description leaves return values and tool-selection context undocumented.

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%, with both query_id and account_id documented in the input schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema — it does not explain how query_id is obtained (e.g., from list_cloudforce_one_queries) or how the two parameters relate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and identifies the resource ('Cloudforce One query details'), so an agent can understand the core operation. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this from sibling tools like list_cloudforce_one_queries, get_cloudforce_one_request, or get_cloudforce_one_event — the agent must infer from the tool name that this fetches a single query by ID.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_cloudforce_one_queries (to enumerate queries) or get_cloudforce_one_event/request (related but different Cloudforce One resources). No conditions, exclusions, or alternative references are given, leaving the agent to rely purely on naming conventions.

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