list_fields

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 states it lists fields but does not mention whether it is read-only, possible errors (e.g., invalid object name), pagination, or return format. For a list operation, the lack of any note about side effects or constraints leaves important behavioral information undisclosed.

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 sentence that immediately states the core action and the optional filter. There is no redundant text, and the most important information is front-loaded. It is appropriately concise for a tool with two parameters.

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 tool has only two parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is relatively simple. However, it lacks explicit usage guidance relative to sibling tools and does not clarify expected behavior or error conditions. For a straightforward listing operation, it is minimally sufficient but not complete enough to warrant a higher score.

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 description coverage is 100%, and both objectName and fieldType are described in the schema. The description merely repeats the filter capability without adding new meaning. Per the baseline for high schema coverage, a score of 3 is appropriate; the description does not exceed the schema's documentation.

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 lists fields for a specific Salesforce object and optionally filters by type. It uses specific verbs and resources, which makes the purpose understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_field_details or list_objects, so it earns a 4 rather than 5.

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 mentions an optional filter but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of when to choose list_fields over get_field_details or list_objects, and no exclusions or contexts are stated. An agent would have to infer appropriate usage from the name and purpose alone.

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