get_object_info

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, but the description adds crucial behavioral details: parallel execution, the max 10 object limit, automatic dot-suffix stripping, the IntelliSense-style fast return for class members, and the raw XML retrieval that returns file paths. It even cautions to 'never shell out to find or read a file.' This transparently discloses behavior beyond annotations with no contradictions.

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 dense paragraph that front-loads the core purpose and then packs in critical usage rules. While long, each clause carries essential information for a tool with 20+ object types and varied options. The structure is slightly linear and could benefit from bullet points, but it remains efficient and purposeful.

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's complexity and the absence of an output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers batching, all supported object types including extensions, the class-member shortcut, options for various object kinds, return format ('per-object sections back'), and replacements for prior tools. There is no significant gap that would leave an agent guessing.

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 a baseline of 3 applies, but the description substantially enriches parameter meaning. It clarifies that 'objects' is preferred over multiple single calls, that objectType includes extension types in the enum, and that options contains type-specific flags like 'includeRdl' and 'method'. It also explains how the name parameter interacts with extension objects, which is not evident from the schema alone.

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 begins with the direct statement 'Read D365FO object metadata,' which clearly specifies the verb (read) and resource (D365FO object metadata). It distinguishes itself from siblings by noting 'Replaces the former get_<type>_info, code_completion, batch_get_info and get_method tools,' making its scope unmistakable.

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 gives extensive when-to-use guidance: for batching multiple objects, passing an objects array in ONE call, and explicitly instructing 'never loop single calls.' It also explains how to handle extension types and when to use class member-name mode. This goes far beyond generic directions.

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