rm_get_custom_field

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds that the target is the definition rather than field values, which is useful, but it does not disclose other behaviors like error handling or authentication. No contradiction exists.

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 one short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the core action and resource efficiently, which is appropriate for a simple one-parameter read tool.

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 single-parameter read operation with an output schema and read-only annotations, the description is largely sufficient. It omits an explicit 'by ID' but the parameter name and schema bridge that gap. No major required context 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 description coverage is 0% and the description does not mention the custom_field_id parameter at all. With a single required parameter, the description should at least indicate that it identifies the field by ID; it does not, leaving the agent to infer semantics solely from the schema title.

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 (Get) and resource (custom field definition) plus scope (details), clearly distinguishing it from listing siblings like rm_list_custom_fields. It conveys that the tool returns a single definition rather than a list.

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 gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or exclusions. Usage is implied—call this when you need a single custom field definition—but it does not name the alternative rm_list_custom_fields or state when to prefer that listing tool.

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