sf_describe_object

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It reveals that the tool returns schema details including fields and relationships, implying a read-only operation. However, it does not explicitly mention that it is safe, require authentication, or disclose any other behavioral traits. This is adequate but not rich.

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 concise sentence with no redundancy. It efficiently states the tool's purpose, but it omits critical details. Given its brevity, the structure is not wasteful, earning a good score, though not maximal because it sacrifices substance.

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?

The tool has no annotations, no output schema, and a 0% schema description coverage. The one-sentence description leaves the agent without enough context to understand the parameters (directory, targetOrg) or the return shape. This is insufficient for reliable tool invocation.

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 input schema has zero descriptions for all three parameters (directory, targetOrg, objectName), and the description does not explain any of them. Only objectName is self-evident from its name; directory and targetOrg remain ambiguous. The description fails to compensate for the 0% schema description 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 that the tool describes a Salesforce object schema, specifically including fields and relationships. This distinguishes it from querying records (e.g., sf_query_org) and metadata listing (sf_list_metadata), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool sf_tooling_describe_object.

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 sf_query_org or sf_tooling_describe_object. It lacks exclusions, prerequisites, or context for selecting this tool over siblings.

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