get_items_by_field

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the general action without mentioning return format, pagination, error handling, case sensitivity, or any side effects. For a read operation, this is a significant gap in what the agent can expect.

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 concise sentence that accurately names the operation. It is front-loaded and devoid of filler words, achieving maximum efficiency with minimal waste.

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 absence of annotations, output schema, and behavior details, the description is too sparse. It does not explain what 'matching' entails, what resources are supported, or what the response structure looks like. Sibling tools provide context that CRUD operations exist, but this description alone is insufficient for an agent to fully leverage the tool.

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?

The input schema already describes all parameters (resource, field, value) with 100% coverage. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline but does not enhance understanding. The schema descriptions are sufficient for basic understanding, but no additional semantic context is provided.

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 'Get items matching a field value' clearly states the tool's function: retrieving items based on a field value. It uses a specific verb and resource, and the name reinforces the purpose. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from list_items or other siblings, which could lead to ambiguity, but the filtering intent is clear.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_items or other sibling tools. The description gives no context for scenarios where filtering is preferred over listing all items, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. This is a minimal viable hint but lacks explicit direction.

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