sf_tooling_list_objects

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It indicates a read-only listing behavior but does not disclose return format, pagination, or any dependencies. The behavior is clear at a high level, but lacks detail.

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 wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose and is appropriately concise.

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 unexplained directory parameter and the absence of an output schema or annotations, the description is not sufficient for an agent to confidently invoke the tool. It leaves a key parameter ambiguous and says nothing about expected output.

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 mentions 'target org', which adds meaning to the targetOrg parameter, but the directory parameter is completely unexplained. With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate, but it only partially does.

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's function with a specific verb ('List') and resource ('Tooling API sObject types'), including the scope ('in the target org'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like sf_tooling_query and 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as sf_tooling_query or sf_tooling_describe_object. The description implies its use for discovering available sObject types, but does not explicitly state this or any prerequisites.

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