crm_get_field_details

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 discloses error behavior ('If "Field not found" error, verify field_name with crm_get_fields') and the type of metadata returned, but it does not fully explain the return format or any permissions needed. The field_name/field_id mismatch is a transparency concern.

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 well-structured with bold headers for Prerequisites, Next Steps, Common Pattern, and Error Recovery. It is longer than necessary but every section adds value. The formatting makes it easy to scan, though the length could be trimmed slightly.

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 no output schema or annotations, the description competently covers the return content (data type, validation rules, picklist values, dependencies) and provides usage context. It also includes error recovery, making it fairly complete for a read-only metadata tool. The missing clarification on field_id vs field_name is a notable gap.

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 100%, so the schema already documents the parameters. The description does not add meaningful semantics and actually introduces confusion by referring to 'field_name' when the schema requires 'field_id'. This offsets the baseline 3, reducing the score.

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 tool's purpose: 'Get detailed metadata for a specific field including data type, validation rules, picklist values, and dependencies.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and the mention of 'specific field' differentiates it from sibling tools like crm_get_module_fields (which lists all fields).

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?

The description provides explicit prerequisites (e.g., 'Use crm_get_fields or crm_get_module_fields first'), next steps (e.g., 'Use field details for crm_validate_criteria'), a common pattern, and error recovery. However, it references 'crm_get_fields' which is not among the sibling tools and conflates field_name with field_id, slightly muddying the guidance.

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