get_dop_field

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool is READ_ONLY and discloses a key limitation: volume/VDB fields do not return raw voxels but only cheaply obtainable resolution/bbox/min/max/average, with unavailable values marked as 'unavailable'. This adds meaningful context that an agent would need. However, it does not describe behavior for other field types, error handling, or the exact return structure, so it is not fully transparent.

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 extremely concise—two sentences—and front-loads the purpose. Every sentence adds information: the first identifies the action and scope, the second provides a specific behavioral caveat. No filler or repetition.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and 7 parameters (5 required), the description is too sparse to provide complete context. It addresses the volume/VDB caveat but does not explain what other fields return, how to specify record_type or record_index, what 'ctx' means, or what the response format looks like. An agent would likely need to gather additional information to use this tool reliably.

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%, yet the description explains none of the seven parameters (ctx, dop_path, object_name, data_name, field_name, record_type, record_index). It mentions 'field' generically but does not clarify the difference between data_name and field_name, or the role of record_type and record_index. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema-level descriptions.

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 tool reads DOP data/record fields, using the verb '读取' (read) with a specific resource. It also notes this is part of add-dops-tools and READ_ONLY, which helps distinguish it from mutation tools. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_dop_object or list_dop_objects, which could also involve reading DOP data.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention scenarios where get_dop_field is preferred over get_dop_object, get_dop_relationships, or other DOP-related tools. The only implicit context is that it is READ_ONLY and targeted at field-level access, which is not enough for an agent to make a selection decision.

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