Get Custom Field Dependencies

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: the subtree narrowing behavior (passing parent or child field_id) and the critical constraint that parent field_id and value must be included when setting a child custom field. This is useful for the agent to understand the tool's role in a broader workflow. However, it doesn't detail error conditions or the exact return shape, though the output schema likely covers the latter.

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 exactly two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by the optional parameter behavior and an important constraint. No filler or redundancy; every sentence earns its place.

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 read-only tool with good annotations, an output schema, and two well-described parameters, the description is complete. It covers the essential dependency workflow (including the parent/child constraint) that an agent needs to know. There is no notable gap in 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters well: entity_type is an enum, and field_id explains the subtree narrowing. The description repeats this information and adds the dependency-setting context, which is more about usage than parameter syntax. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the description does not significantly add meaning 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?

The description clearly states the tool fetches parent-child dependency relationships for custom fields, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_custom_fields and get_custom_field_details by focusing on dependencies, not just listing fields or details. The optional field_id subtree narrowing further clarifies scope.

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 when to use this tool: when you need to understand or set dependencies, especially noting that when setting a child field, the parent field_id and value must be included. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives or name alternative tools, but the context is clear enough for an agent to choose this tool over siblings.

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