get_field_system_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/non-destructive/idempotent, so the bar is lower. The description still adds genuine context beyond them: it discloses the 'in order' semantics of the returned array, that indices map to remove_field_node, that node-graph data is excluded, and spells out the full return shape. It stops short of describing failure modes or path-resolution 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?

Two tightly written sentences front-load the scope and sibling routing, and the Returns block is justified since no output schema exists. Slightly dense in the first sentence, but no filler sentences.

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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description compensates fully by enumerating the return object (field_system_path, command_count, commands fields, success) and clarifying what is excluded. Nothing an agent needs to call and interpret it is missing.

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% with a single well-documented path parameter (including example forms), so the schema already carries the parameter semantics. The description adds nothing further about the path parameter — baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (Read) and resource (field commands authored in a UFieldSystem asset) and enumerates exactly which fields each command carries. It explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings by noting it returns the command list 'not its node graph', so an agent can differentiate it from get_field_system_info-style node inspection without opening 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?

Names the alternatives explicitly: 'the array index is what remove_field_node takes, and add_field_node authors new commands.' This tells the agent both when to use this tool (to discover command indices) and how it relates to the mutating siblings, which is exactly the routing guidance the dimension asks for.

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