get_field

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

No annotations exist, so the description must convey behavior. It states 'Return details' but does not specify idempotency, side effects (none), or response format. The output schema exists but the description itself adds minimal behavioral context.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, and contains no redundant information. Every word is necessary and effective.

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 one parameter and an existing output schema, the description is adequate for a simple retrieval tool. It implies integration with list_fields but could be slightly more explicit about the workflow.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description compensates. It explains field_id as a 'Positional identifier returned by list_fields' with example 'field_0', adding meaning beyond the schema's 'Field Id' label.

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 clearly states 'Return details of a single field by field_id' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_fields (returns multiple) and delete_field (different action).

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 implies usage after list_fields by noting that field_id is a 'Positional identifier returned by list_fields'. It provides context but does not explicitly state when not to use or offer alternatives among siblings like update_field.

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