fields_get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It implies a read-only operation (returns schema) but does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive, requires no special permissions, or has rate limits. Adequate but not exhaustive.

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?

Two concise sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: first defines functionality, second provides usage guidance. No redundant or extraneous information. Excellent structure.

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's simplicity (2 required params, no output schema), the description fully covers what it returns and why it's used. It fits well with sibling tools like mapping creation and import execution, completing the workflow context.

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 coverage is 100% with brief descriptions. The description adds meaning by listing what the output contains (type, required, alternativeTitles, predefinedValues), which is not in the parameter descriptions. This helps the agent understand the return value.

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 specifies a clear verb ('Returns') and resource ('field schema for an entity'), and lists exact attributes (type, required, alternativeTitles, predefinedValues). It distinguishes from sibling tools like mapping or import tools by clarifying it retrieves schema for building mappings.

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 second sentence explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use to build or verify a mapping before running an import.' It provides a clear context but does not mention when not to use it or provide alternatives, though the sibling tools cover different purposes.

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