get_user_field_schema

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool is an admin/config tool (implying elevated privileges), describes the return content, and notes the 'no schema' response behavior. Lacks explicit permission requirements, but the context is sufficient for safe tool selection.

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 well-structured, starting with the tool's purpose and gradually adding detail about what it returns, usage guidelines, and fallback. While slightly longer than necessary, every sentence carries meaningful information and no redundant filler.

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?

Given zero parameters and no output schema, the description comprehensively covers the tool's functionality: it explains the return value (fields, types, sources, display/filter status), usage constraints, and error handling (no schema leads to a refresh instruction). This is complete for an agent to correctly invoke the tool.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema description coverage is 100%. The description adds no further parameter meaning, which is appropriate. The baseline of 4 applies because with no parameters, the description cannot add value beyond stating 'No parameters required.'

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 returns the current user field schema, listing fields, types, sources, and display/filter status. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'refresh_user_field_schema' and 'update_user_field_schema' by specifying its role as a read-only inspector and directing agents to call 'list_users' for ordinary user queries.

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?

Explicitly states when to use (inspect, configure, show, refresh, troubleshoot schema) and when not to use (before ordinary user listing/filtering, which should use 'list_users'). Also explains the fallback behavior if no schema exists, directing the agent to run 'refresh_user_field_schema'.

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