sf_list_metadata

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the operation is read-only, whether authentication is required, what the return format is, or any limitations. The phrase 'for discovery' only implies a non-destructive intent, but no concrete traits are disclosed.

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, grammatically clean sentence with no redundant words, but it omits essential details. While it is efficient, it under-specifies the tool's behavior and parameters, so it does not fully 'earn its place.'

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 five parameters, one required, and no output schema, yet the description only covers the metadata type concept. It lacks information about parameter semantics, output shape, error handling, or any usage context, making it insufficient for an agent to invoke 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?

The schema provides no descriptions for any of the five parameters (0% coverage), and the description only clarifies that 'metadataType' is the filter by type. The roles of folder, directory, targetOrg, and apiVersion are unexplained, leaving the agent unable to correctly populate these fields.

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 'List' and defines the resource as 'metadata components,' filtered 'by metadata type,' which clearly indicates a discovery action. However, it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like sf_retrieve_metadata or sf_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 phrase 'for discovery' hints at an exploratory use case, but the description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as sf_retrieve_metadata or sf_describe_object. There are no exclusions or alternative recommendations, leaving the agent without context for tool selection.

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