get_app_field

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 mentions pagination and wildcard search support, which adds some context beyond basic retrieval. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or response format (e.g., structure of returned values), leaving significant gaps for a tool with 7 parameters and no output schema.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Return values of a single field from app') and appends key features ('with pagination and wildcard search'). Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

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 tool's complexity (7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain the return format, error conditions, or behavioral nuances like how wildcards interact with pagination. For a data retrieval tool with multiple search options, more context is needed to ensure proper agent usage.

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 fully documents all 7 parameters with details like defaults and constraints. The description adds minimal value by mentioning 'pagination and wildcard search', which loosely relates to 'limit', 'offset', 'search_string', and 'search_number', but doesn't provide additional semantic context beyond what's in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 action ('Return values') and resource ('a single field from app'), specifying the scope of retrieval. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'get_app_details' or 'get_apps' by focusing on field values rather than app metadata or lists. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'get_app_field_statistics', which might handle aggregated data instead of raw values.

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 explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_app_field_statistics' or 'get_app_object'. The description mentions pagination and wildcard search features, but doesn't clarify scenarios where this tool is preferred over other field-related or app-related tools in the sibling list.

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