list_objects

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It does disclose a repository-scoped, read-only listing with optional filtering, which is the core behavioral profile. However, it adds nothing about pagination, returned item shape, ordering, or potential cost/scope of scanning the whole repository — gaps that matter for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

Two sentences, roughly 17 words, with the core action front-loaded in the first sentence and optional behaviors cleanly separated in the second. Every word earns its place; nothing is redundant or padded.

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?

For a tool with zero required parameters, the invocation surface is adequately covered: what it lists, where from, and both optional filters. But with no output schema, the description doesn't indicate what the returned object list contains, and it doesn't clarify when to prefer this over get_object_details. Adequate for a basic call, incomplete for confident self-service.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters, including case-insensitive matching and the boolean default of true. The description's mention of filtering by pattern and excluding standard objects mildly reinforces the parameters but adds no new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb (List) and a specific resource (Salesforce objects found in the repository), plus the two optional filtering behaviors. It distinguishes itself from siblings by resource type: list_fields targets fields, get_object_details targets a single object, find_relationships targets relationships, so an agent can tell them apart without opening schemas.

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 on when to use this tool versus its alternatives. The description never names a sibling (e.g., 'use get_object_details for a single object's details') or states a condition that should route an agent elsewhere. The filtering mention is parameter usage, not tool-selection guidance.

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