describe_object

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

With no annotations, the description effectively communicates the read-only nature ('Get metadata') and explains behavior of 'includeFields' (returns all fields including custom) and 'intent' (filters fields). It does not discuss side effects, rate limits, or error conditions, but the core behavioral traits are covered.

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 two sentences, highly concise, and front-loaded with the main action. Every word serves a purpose, with no 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 5 parameters and no output schema, the description covers main functionality and key parameter behaviors. It lacks details on return structure, pagination, and error handling, but for a metadata describe tool it provides sufficient context.

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 coverage is 100%, but the description adds value beyond schema by explaining that custom fields end in '__c' and that 'intent' filters fields to relevant ones. This aids the agent in understanding parameter utility.

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 purpose: 'Get metadata about a Salesforce object', with specifics about including fields when 'includeFields' is true. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'list_objects' by focusing on a single object's metadata and from 'execute_soql' by not returning record data.

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 explicit usage guidance: 'Use this to discover available fields and their API names, especially useful for finding custom fields (ending in __c)'. It implies when to use but does not explicitly mention when not to use or name alternative tools, though sibling tools are listed separately.

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