autotask_get_field_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool retrieves definitions and picklist values, which is useful behavioral context. However, it doesn't mention whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 concise and front-loaded: two sentences that directly state the purpose and usage without waste. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information efficiently.

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 low complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but not complete. It covers the basic purpose and usage but lacks details on behavioral traits like read-only nature or error scenarios. Without annotations or output schema, the description should do more to compensate, but it meets a minimum viable level.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters (entityType and fieldName) with descriptions and examples. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by implying the tool is for 'discovering valid values,' which relates to parameter usage but doesn't provide additional syntax or format details. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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's purpose: 'Get field definitions for an Autotask entity type, including picklist values.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('field definitions'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools by focusing on metadata rather than data operations. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar tools like autotask_list_categories or autotask_list_ticket_statuses, which also provide metadata.

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 provides clear context for usage: 'Useful for discovering valid values for any picklist field.' This indicates when to use the tool—for field definition lookup, especially for picklists. It implicitly suggests using this before operations that require valid field values, but it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among siblings.

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