generate_data_dictionary

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention whether the tool is read-only, idempotent, requires authentication, or has side effects. The description focuses on output format but omits safety or mutation characteristics.

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 concise with two short paragraphs and no redundant words. It front-loads the main purpose and lists output contents efficiently. It could be slightly more compact but is well-structured.

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 complexity (6 params, no annotations, output schema exists), the description covers the output format and general purpose but does not explain input parameters beyond entities. It assumes the agent knows what SF entities are valid. The presence of an output schema partially compensates, but the description should offer more detail on prerequisites or parameter usage.

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 50% (3 of 6 parameters have descriptions). The tool description only adds that the input is 'multiple SF entities', which is already covered by the entities parameter description. It fails to explain the purpose of language, data_center, auth fields, or include_navigation, so it does not compensate for missing schema descriptions.

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 it generates a complete data dictionary for multiple SF entities, listing field-by-field metadata like name, type, label, etc. This verb+resource combination is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like generate_fo_workbook or generate_mdf_import_template, which have different outputs.

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 for creating a data dictionary of SF entities, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_entity_metadata or list_entities. No prerequisites, exclusions, or context for selection are mentioned, so it relies on the agent to infer.

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