common-get-item-field

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes this as a safe read, lowering the bar, but the description adds little beyond restating the returnType options that already exist in the schema. It says nothing about id-vs-path resolution, wildcard name matching, database defaults, or language analysis that would help an agent predict behavior.

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 short sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and resource. It is efficient, though the phrasing "as either names or fields or template fields" is slightly redundant with the returnType enum.

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 7-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations beyond readOnlyHint, the description is too thin. It omits the id/path requirement, wildcard semantics, database resolution, and the language parameter, leaving significant behavioral gaps that the schema descriptions only partially cover.

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 the schema already documents all seven parameters thoroughly (id/path mutual exclusivity, wildcard support, database default, returnType enum). The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, 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?

The description names a verb ("Gets") and resource ("item fields"), and hints at three output modes (names, fields, template fields). However, "as either names or fields or template fields" is awkward and does not distinguish this tool from siblings like common-get-item-template or item-service-get-item, leaving the agent to guess its specific role.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the many sibling get-item tools (common-get-item-template, authoring-get-item, item-service-get-item). The agent must infer selection from the name alone.

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