directus_get_field

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns comprehensive metadata (schema, meta, type), but fails to mention error behaviors (e.g., missing field), caching characteristics, or whether this is a safe read-only operation.

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 with minimal waste, but the '[UNIFIED]' prefix appears to be metadata noise. Given the lack of schema documentation, the brevity is inadequate rather than elegant—it should expand to explain the three required parameters.

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?

No output schema exists to document return values. While the description hints at returned content (schema/meta/type), it doesn't explain the hierarchical context (site > collection > field) or link to the broader Directus data model, leaving significant gaps for a 3-parameter metadata retrieval tool.

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 0%, requiring the description to compensate for undocumented parameters. It fails to explain what 'site', 'collection', or 'field' refer to (e.g., project name, table name, column name) or their expected formats, leaving users to infer the hierarchical relationship.

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 the action ('Get'), resource ('field'), and return contents ('schema, meta, and type information'), which distinguishes it from sibling operations like 'directus_list_fields' (plural) and 'directus_create_field'. However, it doesn't explicitly clarify when to use this single-item retrieval versus the list operation.

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 when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternative selection criteria are provided. The agent cannot determine when to choose this over 'directus_list_fields' or how it relates to field modification workflows.

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