sf_tooling_describe_object

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, required permissions, or return format. It only restates the action without adding contextual depth beyond the basic purpose.

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, focused sentence with no redundant words. It's appropriately front-loaded and concise for its limited scope, making every word 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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain the tool's behavior more fully. It omits any explanation of optional parameters and the structure of the returned schema, making it incomplete for a 3-parameter tool.

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 description adds minimal parameter meaning by mentioning 'object name' for objectName, but fails to explain 'directory' and 'targetOrg', which have zero schema coverage and no descriptions. With 0% coverage, the description should compensate but only does so for one parameter.

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 tool describes a Tooling API object schema by object name, using a specific verb and resource. It differentiates from sibling describe tool via the 'Tooling API' qualifier, making the scope unambiguous.

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 explicit usage guidance or exclusions. It doesn't reference alternatives like sf_describe_object for standard objects; usage is inferred only from the 'Tooling API' term, so the intent is clear but not directly stated.

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