planka_get_custom_field_group

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It correctly indicates a read-only operation ('Read'), but it does not mention any potential errors (e.g., resource not found), authentication requirements, or additional behavioral traits beyond reading. The return format is hinted but not explicitly stated, leaving some ambiguity.

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, clear sentence that conveys the core purpose without unnecessary words. However, it could be slightly more informative by mentioning the output format options or typical usage context, without violating conciseness.

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 low complexity (1 parameter, no nested objects, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. It explains what is retrieved (fields and values) but lacks details on the structure of the response, error handling, or any pagination. For a simple read tool, it is sufficient but not thorough.

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?

Despite the context signal indicating 0% schema description coverage, the actual input schema includes descriptions for both parameters (custom_field_group_id and response_format). However, the tool description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides. It does not explain how to construct the ID or when to use the response_format parameter, leaving the agent to rely solely on 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 uses the specific verb 'Read' and clearly identifies the resource as a 'custom field group.' It also specifies that the output includes 'its fields and values,' setting clear expectations. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like planka_create_custom_field_group or planka_get_card.

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 the tool should be used when you need to retrieve a custom field group with its details, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives (e.g., planka_get_card for cards) or provide usage context like prerequisites (e.g., needing the group ID). However, for a simple read operation, the usage is self-evident.

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