get_card_field

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

Clearly describes the return format including both success case and null case when the field is not set. No annotations provided, so the description fully handles behavioral disclosure for a read-only operation.

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?

Extremely concise, covering purpose, args, and return values in three lines. No unnecessary information.

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, the description fully documents the return structure. It covers both parameters and the two possible return cases, making it complete for a simple getter tool.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description provides meaningful examples and source for both parameters: card_ref gets an example (ON-914), field_id identifies its source (list_custom_fields()). This adds substantial value beyond the schema.

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?

Specifies exactly what it does: 'Get the current value of a single custom field on a card.' Distinguishes itself from siblings like 'set_card_field' and 'get_all_card_fields' by focusing on a single field and read-only operation.

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?

Mentions that field_id comes from 'list_custom_fields()', implying a prerequisite. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_all_card_fields' for retrieving all fields at once.

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