ACF Term Felder 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 that fields are retrieved, without mentioning read-only safety, return format, what happens if the term or fields do not exist, or any other behavioral characteristics. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation support.

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 front-loads the core purpose. It contains no filler words or redundant information, making it highly 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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should clarify what the return value looks like and provide more context about the operation. It only states the basic action (retrieving fields), leaving the agent without enough information about the response format or edge cases. This is insufficient for a tool that lacks structured output documentation.

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 provides complete descriptions for both parameters (termId and taxonomy) with examples for taxonomy, yielding 100% schema coverage. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 tool retrieves ACF custom fields for a taxonomy term (category, tag, etc.), using the specific verb 'abrufen' (retrieve) with a clear resource scope. This differentiates it from sibling tools like acf_get_post_fields 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 implies usage by naming the target resource (terms), but it does not explicitly state when to choose this over alternatives or provide exclusions. The main clue is the term 'Term' in the name and description, which helps an agent infer the appropriate context, but there is no direct guidance on alternatives.

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