Get Field Schema

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does communicate that the tool returns only the requested schema subtree rather than a full endpoint schema, which is valuable. However, it does not explicitly disclose whether the operation is side-effect-free, what happens for invalid paths, or any auth/permission expectations, leaving some important behavioral gaps.

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 compact and front-loaded: the core purpose is in the first sentence, the main alternative in the second, and the value intervention with find_field in the third. There is no filler or redundant restatement of the input schema.

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?

A simple read-only tool with two well-documented parameters, 100% schema coverage, and an output schema exists, so return-value details do not need repeating. The description covers why to use this tool, what to expect to receive (the subtree), and how to obtain valid field paths, making it functionally complete.

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?

Parameter description coverage is 100% and already includes good examples. The description adds extra meaning by explaining that slug points at an endpoint's schema and that field_path can be taken directly from find_field output, helping agents construct valid values.

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?

Description clearly states action ('drill into'), resource ('specific field's schema'), and context ('within an endpoint'). Explicitly contrasts with fetching the full endpoint schema and references find_field, giving agents enough to distinguish it from get_endpoint and other siblings.

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?

Gives an explicit when-to-use, saying to use this tool instead of fetching the full 70KB endpoint schema when only a subtree is needed. It also signals compatibility by stating that find_field paths work directly, which tells agents how this tool fits into a larger workflow.

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