sf_list_objects

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does this well by revealing the trimmed output shape, the potential scale of 800+ objects, and filter behavior. It does not mention auth, errors, or exact return envelope, but for a read-only listing tool the provided behavioral detail is strong.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence. The 800+ objects detail justifies why the result is trimmed, and the filtering guidance is compact. Every sentence earns its place and there is no filler or repetition.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description supplies the necessary context: what the tool lists, what fields it returns per object, how large the result may be, and how to narrow it. An agent has enough information to select and invoke this tool correctly without additional inference.

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%, so the description must compensate for the schema. It does: custom_only is explained as a boolean filter for limiting to custom objects, and name_contains is defined as a case-insensitive match on name or label. Both optional parameters are fully semantically described despite the empty 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?

States a specific action: 'List objects available in the org (global describe)' and explicitly frames the use case as 'for discoverability.' The global-scope wording distinguishes it from single-object siblings like sf_describe_object, and the tool name reinforces the resource. Purpose is unambiguous and not tautological.

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?

Clearly describes when to use the tool (discoverability) and how to narrow results with custom_only and name_contains, including exact matching semantics. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use this tool versus sf_describe_object, so it stops short of a 5.

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