get_merge_field

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

The description implies a read-only operation via the word 'get', but without annotations, it does not explicitly state the absence of side effects or disclose any behavioral traits such as error conditions or required permissions. It adds minimal transparency beyond what the name/verb suggests.

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 easy to parse. It is appropriately concise for a simple retrieve operation, though it forgoes the opportunity to add useful context.

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?

For a simple get tool with two well-documented parameters, the description is minimally adequate. It does not explain what 'details' includes or any return value structure, and there is no output schema to fill that gap, so the completeness is moderate.

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 provides 100% coverage with clear descriptions for both parameters ('list_id' and 'merge_field_id'). The description adds no additional meaning, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 action ('Get') and the resource ('a specific merge field'), making it distinct from the sibling 'list_merge_fields' by implying a single record. However, it does not explicitly mention the parameters or that it fetches by ID, which is partially covered by the schema.

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_merge_fields' or when it is appropriate to call. It does not specify any prerequisites or context where this tool is the preferred choice.

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