get_fields

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Describes the read-only listing behavior, default limit (200), and detailed return structure. No side effects mentioned but not needed for a listing tool.

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?

Well-structured with sections, front-loads main purpose. Some technical references (CLI subcommand, version note) add length but are contextually relevant. Not overly verbose.

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?

No output schema, but description provides full return JSON structure. No annotations, but covers all necessary behavioral and param details. Complete for a 3-parameter listing 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?

Schema coverage 0%, but description includes Args block explaining each parameter: path (path to .dll/.exe), fqn (fully-qualified type name), and limit (max rows, default 200). Adds meaning beyond schema titles and types.

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?

Clearly states 'List the fields of one type (Mono / .NET pure assembly).' Verb 'list' and resource 'fields of a type' are specific. Distinguishes from siblings like `get_methods` (methods) and `decompile_type` (full decompilation).

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?

Provides usage context: same routing as `get_methods`, and a version note explaining its use case for discovering field names without `decompile_type`. Lacks explicit when-not or exclusion scenarios, but gives clear context.

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