sf_describe_object

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Return' indicates a read-only metadata operation, but the description does not explicitly state that it is side-effect-free, does not mention authentication requirements, or describe failure behavior. It is minimal but not misleading.

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?

A single clear sentence with no filler. The action and target are front-loaded, and every word contributes to understanding.

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 single-parameter describe operation, the description conveys the main purpose and return content. Yet with no annotations and no output schema, it leaves out explicit notes on read-only behavior, permissions, and error conditions, making it adequate but not complete.

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 0%, and the description only says 'for one object,' which adds some meaning by linking the parameter to the target object. However, it does not clarify that sobject is the Salesforce API name, provide examples, or list accepted values. The compensation is partial.

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?

States a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('field metadata ... for one object'), making the operation clear. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like sf_list_objects or sf_query, but the intent is unambiguous.

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 prefer this tool over alternatives such as sf_list_objects, sf_query, or sf_get_record. The only implied use case is needing field metadata for a single object, with no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.

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