get_fields

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It only says 'Return' but does not disclose potential performance impact, auth requirements, or whether fields are ordered. No behavioral traits beyond the basic action.

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 very concise (one line plus args list), with no wasted words. However, the parameter list could be integrated more naturally into the description text rather than a separate block.

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?

An output schema exists but the description does not reference it or describe the return structure. No context about typical usage patterns or edge cases. Incomplete for a tool with 0% schema coverage.

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%, so the description must compensate. It lists parameters but adds no extra meaning beyond their names (e.g., does not explain 'limit' behavior or format of 'metadata_path').

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 'Return the fields of a class as a structured list,' which identifies the verb (return), resource (fields of a class), and output format (structured list). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_methods and get_properties.

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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., need to get class FQN from list_classes) or exclusions (e.g., not for instance fields).

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