acf_get_post_field

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It does not mention read-only nature, side effects, permissions, or return format, leaving the agent uninformed beyond the obvious get operation.

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 extremely concise (one sentence), which is efficient for a simple tool. However, it lacks structure and could benefit from brief bullet points or additional context that doesn't increase verbosity excessively.

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 the absence of an output schema and annotations, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain return values, error handling, or the behavior of the 'format' parameter, leaving crucial gaps for correct tool invocation.

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 covers 67% of parameters (post_id and field have descriptions), but the description adds no explanation for the undocumented 'format' parameter (raw vs formatted). The agent cannot infer the meaning of this parameter from the description alone.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'single ACF field value for a post', making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It implicitly distinguishes from the sibling acf_get_post_fields (which gets multiple fields).

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like acf_get_post_fields. No context about prerequisites or appropriate scenarios is given.

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