field_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds some context by noting that addons paths are 'auto-detected if omitted' and that modules can be skipped, implying a module-loading process. However, it does not disclose potential side effects, performance impacts, or prerequisites beyond the project path, leaving a gap in transparency.

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 followed by a well-organized parameter list. It is front-loaded with the purpose and avoids redundant text, making it concise and easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

The description, combined with the existing output schema, provides sufficient information for invoking the tool correctly. It covers all parameters and their roles. However, it could be enhanced by explicitly guiding when to use this tool over siblings, though the output schema mitigates the need to describe return values.

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?

The 'Args:' section provides descriptions for all five parameters, which the schema lacks (0% schema coverage). It gives concrete examples (sale.order, amount_total) and explains optionality (auto-detected, skip loading), effectively compensating for the schema's lack of detail and adding significant meaning.

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 'Get detailed info for a field: type, compute, depends, overrides,' which is a specific verb-resource pairing. Sibling tools like list_models and model_info indicate different foci, so field_info is easily distinguishable as the tool for field-level details.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only describes the function and parameters, leaving usage inference to the agent. The purpose implies its use for field info, but no exclusions or alternative comparisons are provided, making guidance implied rather than explicit.

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