get_sobject_fields

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral transparency. It goes beyond a generic statement by explaining that for lookup fields, the type is 'reference' and includes the lookup table name and field name. This adds significant context about the return structure. It does not mention any side effects or limitations, but for a read-only metadata tool this is acceptable.

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 exceptionally concise: two sentences that front-load the primary purpose, followed by a clear parameter description. Every word adds value; no fluff or redundancy.

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 low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the essential aspects: what the tool does, what it returns (names, labels, types, lookup details), and how to specify the object. It could be more explicit about the exact response structure (e.g., list of field objects), but for a simple metadata retrieval tool, it is sufficiently complete.

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 single parameter 'object_name' is explained with its purpose ('The name of the Salesforce object') and concrete examples ('e.g., 'Account', 'Contact''). Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description compensates well by adding meaning beyond the schema's title and type.

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 action ('Retrieves') and the resource ('field Names, labels and types for a specific Salesforce object'), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_record' and 'run_soql_query' which operate on data rather than metadata.

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 a clear context: it retrieves metadata about Salesforce object fields. The example of object names (e.g., 'Account', 'Contact') gives practical usage guidance. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, though the distinction from data query tools is implied.

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