ACF Felder eines Posts abrufen

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The verb 'abrufen' implies a read-only operation, but the description adds little beyond the title and name. It does not disclose error behavior, return format, or whether any side effects occur (e.g., caching).

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 concise sentence that directly conveys the tool's purpose without filler. It is front-loaded and efficient.

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 tool is simple, and the description covers its primary purpose, but there are gaps. With no output schema, the description should ideally mention return behavior. It also omits that custom post types are supported (per the schema's customPostType parameter), and it lacks guidance on when to use this over related ACF tools.

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 covers all three parameters with descriptions (postId, postType, customPostType), so the schema carries the parameter semantics. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema, but that is acceptable given the 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 states a specific verb ('Ruft ab' - retrieves), a clear resource ('alle ACF Custom Fields'), and the scope ('eines Posts/einer Seite' - of a post/page). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like acf_get_options or acf_get_user_fields, which target different object types.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as acf_bulk_get_fields, acf_get_options, or acf_get_user_fields. It simply states the function without context, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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