smartsuite_describe_field

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

The description discloses read-only behavior (consistent with annotations) and adds specific metadata included in the response, which is valuable given no output schema. However, it doesn't reveal potential errors or limitations.

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 sentence that efficiently conveys the main purpose and key metadata categories with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and easily digestible.

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 usefully lists several metadata fields returned. However, it may not be exhaustive (e.g., missing default values, field type). For a complex tool interacting with SmartSuite, slightly more detail would improve completeness.

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?

The input schema already describes both parameters with 100% coverage. The description does not add extra meaning or usage hints beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 retrieves detailed metadata for a single field, listing specific metadata types (help text, choice options, linked-record targets, formula expression/return type). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like smartsuite_list_fields, which lists fields without such detail.

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 implies usage for obtaining detailed field metadata but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives (e.g., smartsuite_list_fields for summaries). No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.

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