Dynamic fields of a Sui object

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so 'Reads only' is largely redundant, but the description adds real behavioral context: the value is a BCS blob deliberately omitted from the response, default page size is 50 and capped at 200, and a cursor covers the remainder. That is disclosure beyond what the annotations supply, though return format is described only in outline.

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?

Purpose and scoping are front-loaded in the first clause, and pagination plus the value-omission caveat follow efficiently. The prose is somewhat ornate ('and 200 at the outside') and a couple of clauses could be trimmed, but every sentence carries 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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-shape burden and does so: a row names the field's object id, kind, keying name and Move value type, and it explains that the value is withheld and how to retrieve it. Pagination and default limits are also covered, so an agent can call and consume this 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented, including the parent id pattern and the 50/200 page-size constraint. The description restates these rather than adding syntax or format meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Whatever a Move package stored under one object's UID: tables, bags and dynamic object fields, listed from the parent id') and by naming suiGetObjects as the tool that returns decoded values, it disambiguates itself from that sibling without the agent needing the schema.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: this tool lists field ids/kinds/names, and 'hand that field id to suiGetObjects and it comes back decoded' names the alternative and the condition that selects it. The scope ('from the parent id') further clarifies when this is the right call.

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