salesforce_describe_object

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It accurately describes the tool as returning schema metadata (a read operation) without side effects. However, it omits potential considerations like resource intensity for objects with many fields, API usage limits, or permission requirements beyond standard Salesforce describe access.

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 two sentences long with zero wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose in the first sentence and provides clarifying examples in the second. Every part serves a purpose.

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 single parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is fairly complete. It explains what the tool returns and provides actionable examples. However, it could elaborate on the output structure (e.g., field types, relationships properties) to fully compensate for the missing output schema, though standard Salesforce metadata is well-known to agents.

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 100% coverage for the single parameter 'objectName', describing it as the API name. The description adds significant value by giving concrete examples ('Account', 'Contact', 'Custom_Object__c') and clarifying that custom fields are included ('including custom fields'). This helps the agent understand the parameter format and scope.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'detailed schema metadata including all fields, relationships, and field properties of any Salesforce object'. It provides concrete examples ('Account', 'Case') that distinguish this tool from siblings like salesforce_query_records or salesforce_search_objects, which operate on data rather than metadata.

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 implies usage through examples but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'Use this to understand object structure before querying') or when not to use it. It provides no guidance on prerequisites or conditions, leaving the agent to infer context from the purpose alone.

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