get_mdf_object_definition

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It lists return contents but fails to disclose behavioral traits such as side effects (none expected), authorization needs, rate limits, or output size. It also doesn't mention read-only nature or potential errors.

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: three brief sentences. First sentence states the main purpose, second lists return contents, third notes scope. No fluff, front-loaded with key information.

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 presence of an output schema (true), the description need not explain return values. It provides sufficient context about the object types (custom and standard). However, it could be more complete by noting that it's a read operation and mentioning the tool's relationship to other metadata tools.

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 only 25% (only object_name has description). The description adds meaning by explaining object_name as 'MDF object name / entity name' and notes it works for custom objects. However, it doesn't detail the auth parameters or data_center, leaving ambiguity about their purpose and usage.

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 gets 'complete metadata for an MDF object' with specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like list_mdf_objects (listing) and get_entity_metadata (generic) by specifying the object type (cust_* and standard).

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 retrieving metadata but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., list_mdf_objects for listing, get_entity_metadata for generic metadata). No when-not-to-use or context for selection among 50+ siblings.

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