get_dop_field

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get', which implies a read operation, but it does not disclose return format, error behavior, whether the field is returned as a scalar or object, or any side effects. This is insufficient for a tool with no structured annotations.

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 with no filler or redundant wording. It is front-loaded with the core action, but it could still include more helpful context (e.g., parameter clarification) without becoming verbose. However, as a purely efficient statement, it scores well.

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?

The tool lacks an output schema and annotations, and the description does not fill this gap. It does not state what the function returns (e.g., the field value, a dictionary, an error), how errors are handled, or when this should be used in a Houdini workflow. For a tool with three required parameters and no structured documentation, this is inadequate.

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%, and the description does not compensate by explaining any of the three parameters (path, object_name, field_name). While the names are somewhat self-explanatory, 'path' is ambiguous and there is no context about what these mean in relation to a DOP object. The description adds no semantic value beyond the parameter names.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'a specific field from a DOP object', which accurately defines the tool's purpose. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_dop_object by emphasizing 'specific field', though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_dop_object or list_dop_objects. The description simply states what it does without any contextual usage advice, so the agent must infer appropriate scenarios.

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