get_items_by_field

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Get items matching a field value,' implying a read operation, but does not mention pagination, limits, response format, or any side effects. This is insufficient for a clear understanding of the tool's behavior.

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, short sentence that is concise and to the point. It avoids verbosity but could be slightly expanded without losing conciseness. The brevity is appropriate for the tool's simplicity.

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 tool's simplicity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimal but lacks completeness. It does not explain the nature of the filter (exact match? case-sensitive?), potential return size, or where the data comes from. This leaves gaps in understanding for an AI agent.

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 is 100%, so all three parameters (field, value, resource) have descriptions in the input schema. The tool description adds no new information beyond the schema, matching the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 action (get) and the resource (items) with a filtering condition. It distinguishes from siblings like create_item, update_item, delete_item, get_schema, and list_items by indicating a filtered retrieval, though it could be more specific about the filtering mechanism.

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 (which likely retrieves all items) or get_schema. The description lacks context about when filtering by field is appropriate, leaving the agent without decision support.

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