getMultiImagePostFields

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that it is 'Read-only' and provides detailed return format: a bare array (not wrapped in status/message) with specific fields like key, label, required, type, etc. It also includes a 'Silent-fallback warning' about potential misleading responses. This adds context beyond the annotations.

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 paragraph but well-structured with clear sections. It front-loads the purpose and then provides usage guidelines, parameter requirement, return format, and warnings. It is slightly verbose but each sentence adds value.

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 has only one parameter and no output schema, the description provides comprehensive context: the purpose, when to use, required parameter, detailed return structure, and a critical warning about silent fallback. It also notes a nuance about categorization. This is sufficient for an AI agent to use the tool correctly.

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 0% (no parameter descriptions in schema). The description states 'Required: `form_name`' and clarifies that form_name must match a real post-type form. However, it does not explain what form_name represents (e.g., the form's name or identifier), leaving some ambiguity. It adds minimum value beyond the schema requirement.

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 album group field definitions - Fetch field definitions for a multi-image post type form. Read-only.' It uses a specific verb (fetch) and resource (field definitions for multi-image post type form) and distinguishes from sibling 'getSingleImagePostFields' by mentioning the 'users_portfolio_groups' resource.

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 explicitly says 'Use when: discovering per-post-type custom fields for multi-image posts - same pattern as `getSingleImagePostFields` but for the `users_portfolio_groups` resource.' It also warns that if 'form_name' does not match a real post-type form, the API may return a generic field list without error, and advises verifying the form_name exists in 'listPostTypes' before trusting the response.

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