sobject_list

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, open-world and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is handled. The description adds real value beyond that: the JSON return shape (name, label, metadata) and a hard ordering prerequisite before Apex/SOQL authoring. It omits auth/permission requirements and rate/pagination behavior.

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?

Front-loaded and readable, but three of the five sentences restate the same 'list standard and custom objects' idea, and the return-format sentence duplicates what the output schema already provides. It is padded rather than tight.

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 rich annotations and an output schema, the description does not need to explain returns or safety, yet it supplies the one thing structured data cannot: the workflow prerequisite to run this before generating Apex or SOQL. Only the org-selection parameter is left under-explained.

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 only parameter (targetOrg) is mentioned only obliquely as 'the specified Salesforce Org', with no explanation of the alias format or the default-org fallback — that detail lives in the schema. With a single parameter and no added semantics in the description, this is baseline territory.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List all standard and custom objects in a Salesforce Org') and clarifies the scope as standard plus custom. An agent can distinguish it from describe/query siblings without opening a schema, though it never names them explicitly.

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?

Gives a concrete condition: use it to explore objects when you don't know API names, and 'always execute this tool before writing Apex code or SOQL queries.' That is strong when-to-use guidance, but it never names an alternative (e.g. sobject_describe, list_metadata) or states when-not to use it.

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