Discover Fields Tool

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns sample fields but does not disclose whether this is a read-only operation, whether it requires prior discovery steps, what happens for invalid or unknown entities, or how the returned fields are structured. The term 'discovered' hints at a dependency on a prior discovery process, but this is not explicitly explained.

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 wasted words. It front-loads the action ('Return') and the object ('discovered sample fields'). However, it is so brief that it sacrifices useful context, which is a minor structural tradeoff rather than a verbosity issue.

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 has one parameter, no annotations, and an output schema, the description is too thin to be complete. It does not explain the purpose of 'discovered sample fields' in the broader Grocy workflow, how this tool relates to discover_candidates_tool and describe_entity_tool, or what an agent should do with the output. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but the missing usage and dependency context remains a significant 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 0%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented 'entity' parameter. The description mentions 'a Grocy entity' but does not clarify what values are valid, whether it accepts an entity name or ID, or how it relates to the entity_list_tool's entity identifiers. The single parameter's semantics are only partially conveyed.

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 states a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('discovered sample fields for a Grocy entity'), which is clear enough to identify the tool's basic function. However, it does not distinguish this tool from its close siblings discover_candidates_tool and describe_entity_tool, which likely serve related discovery/description purposes. The phrase 'discovered sample fields' is somewhat ambiguous without context on what 'discovered' means in this workflow.

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 discover_candidates_tool or describe_entity_tool. The description does not mention any prerequisites, such as whether the entity must first be discovered or described, nor does it explain the relationship between this tool and its siblings. An agent would have to infer usage context from the tool name alone.

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