salesforce_get_object_fields

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

No annotations are provided, so the description should carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions using the REST API describe endpoint and lists the returned attributes, which is helpful, but it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, whether authentication is required, or any limiting constraints. The description is acceptable but not richly transparent.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the main purpose and immediately states the return content. Every word adds value, with no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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 simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it explains what the tool does, how it works (via describe endpoint), and what it returns. There are no hidden complexities or missing prerequisites that would affect an agent's ability to invoke it correctly.

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 already fully describes the only parameter (objectName) with an example and explanation, so schema coverage is 100%. The description does not add additional parameter semantics beyond confirming that it operates on a Salesforce object, which aligns with the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 ('Query'), a precise resource ('all existing fields on a Salesforce object'), and the method ('using the REST API describe endpoint'). It clearly differentiates from siblings like salesforce_query (which queries records) and salesforce_create_custom_field (which creates fields).

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: when field metadata is needed (names, labels, types, etc.), not when querying records. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state exclusions, but the context is sufficiently clear for an agent to select it appropriately among the listed siblings.

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