custom_fields_get_custom_field_by_id

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds no additional behavioral context, such as return format, error handling, or edge cases, beyond restating the tool's purpose. With annotations present, the description's lack of extra detail is a minor gap.

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 short sentence, 'Get Custom Field / Folder By Id', which is concise and front-loaded with the essential action. Every word serves a purpose, and there is no redundant elaboration or extraneous 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?

For a straightforward get-by-id tool with a single parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally sufficient. However, it does not clarify whether the tool returns a field or a folder, nor does it address potential ambiguity in the resource type. Missing details about return structure or error conditions are not critical but leave some gaps for an agent.

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 undocumented 'id' parameter. The description merely says 'By Id', which reiterates that the parameter is an ID but adds no information about ID format, type expectations, or what constitutes a valid ID. For a single simple parameter, this is barely adequate but fails to provide meaningful semantic enrichment.

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 uses a specific verb 'Get' and identifies the resource as 'Custom Field / Folder', which clearly indicates fetching a single custom field or folder by ID. It is distinguishable from siblings like custom_fields_create_custom_field or custom_fields_delete_custom_field, though it does not specify whether the ID refers to a field or folder, introducing slight ambiguity.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It is implied that this is the correct tool when retrieving a custom field or folder by its ID, but no conditions or exclusions are stated. Given the obvious purpose, this is sufficient for a simple get-by-id operation but lacks explicit routing.

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