get_project_fields

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint as true, signaling safe, repeatable behavior. The description adds no further behavioral context (e.g., authorization or rate limits), but does not contradict annotations. A score of 3 reflects adequate transparency given the annotation coverage.

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?

Single sentence, no unnecessary words. Efficiently conveys the core action and target. Every word 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?

With one parameter and annotations present, the description is mostly complete for a simple metadata retrieval tool. However, without an output schema, it would benefit from briefly stating the return format (e.g., 'returns a list of field names and types'). Slight gap, but adequate overall.

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% (one parameter with description 'Table name to get fields for'). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description uses verb 'get' and resource 'field names and types for a specific table', clearly indicating retrieval of table metadata. The tool name 'get_project_fields' and the parameter 'table' reinforce this. While similar siblings exist (e.g., get_core_fields), the description's specificity to 'a specific table' distinguishes it adequately.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_core_fields, get_settings_fields, or get_project_schema. The description merely states the function without contextualizing its appropriate application.

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