wrike_get_custom_field

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It accurately describes a read-only operation but does not disclose potential error behavior (e.g., 404 for unknown ID), authentication requirements, or the exact structure of the returned definition. For a simple GET, this is adequate but not rich.

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, front-loaded sentence ('Get a specific custom field definition by ID') with no wasted words. It perfectly balances brevity and clarity.

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 the tool's low complexity (one required parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the essential purpose. It lacks detail about the response format or what a 'definition' includes, but for a simple retrieval tool, this is reasonably complete.

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 100%: the only parameter 'customFieldId' is described as 'Custom field ID (required)'. The description's 'by ID' reinforces this but adds no new semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline of 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 clearly states the action ('Get'), the resource ('custom field definition'), and the scope ('by ID'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like wrike_list_custom_fields, wrike_create_custom_field, wrike_update_custom_field, and wrike_delete_custom_field by specifying this is a singular retrieval operation.

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 the use case: when you have a specific custom field ID and need its definition. There are no explicit alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear for a simple read operation. A more explicit note about using wrike_list_custom_fields to discover IDs would have justified a 5, but is not essential.

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