ACF Repeater Rows 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 of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic fetch operation and does not explain the return format, behavior on missing or non-repeater fields, or any other operational traits. Minimal disclosure beyond the tool's name.

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?

A single sentence with no filler or redundancy. It directly and efficiently communicates the core purpose, with all words earning their place.

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, but without an output schema, the description should offer some indication of the returned structure or context (e.g., an array of rows). It also fails to position the tool among the many ACF-related siblings, leaving a completeness gap despite the simple nature.

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 schema already provides full descriptions for both parameters (postId, fieldName) with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate per the rubric.

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 uses a specific verb ('ruft ab' - fetches) and clearly names the resource ('alle Zeilen eines Repeater-Feldes' - all rows of a repeater field). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like acf_get_flexible_layouts or acf_get_post_fields by explicitly targeting repeater rows.

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 other ACF getters. There is no mention of prerequisites, alternatives, or exclusion cases, leaving the agent to infer usage entirely from the name and description.

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