ACF Field Group Details

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It only states what is retrieved, but does not disclose return format, error behavior, whether the fields are full definitions or just names, or any side effects. It implies read-only but doesn't confirm.

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 with no redundant or filler content. It efficiently communicates the core purpose.

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?

For a simple one-parameter retrieval tool, the description covers the basic purpose and scope. However, with no output schema and a large sibling set, it lacks guidance on what the 'details' include or how they are structured, and does not mention common usage contexts. It is minimally adequate.

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 input schema already describes the single parameter (groupId) as 'Field Group ID oder Key' with a type of number or string. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the schema's 100% coverage sets a baseline of 3.

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 states a specific action ('Ruft ab' = retrieves) on a specific resource ('Details einer Field Group') and mentions it includes all fields. This distinguishes it from list-type siblings like acf_list_field_groups, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other getter tools like acf_get_post_fields.

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 is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many ACF-related siblings, the description provides no context such as 'use this to inspect a field group definition' or 'prefer this over acf_list_field_groups when you need a single group.'

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