anki_get_model_fields

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: field names are case-sensitive and space-sensitive (with a concrete example), and ordering follows template order. This helps the agent use the output correctly.

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 two sentences: the first states the primary purpose and scope, the second adds crucial formatting details. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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, has a full output schema, and annotations covering its read-only, open-world nature. The description covers the core purpose and the most important behavioral nuance (key format) for downstream use. Nothing essential is missing.

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 100% with both parameters described in detail, including an enum for response_format. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema; the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 the specific verb 'List' with the resource 'a note type's field names' and adds the scope qualifier 'in template order'. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like anki_list_models (which lists note types themselves).

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 says these are the exact keys anki_add_note expects, giving a concrete use case and context. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the purpose is clear enough to guide selection among siblings.

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