get_field_properties

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 states this is a read operation ('Get'), implying it's non-destructive, but doesn't clarify permissions, error handling, or response format. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves critical behavioral traits undocumented, such as whether it requires authentication or how it handles invalid field names.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. Every part ('Get properties of a specific field by name') contributes directly to understanding the tool's function, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick comprehension.

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 complexity (a read operation with one parameter), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what properties are returned, error conditions, or dependencies on other tools. For a tool in a server with many siblings, more context is needed to ensure the agent can use it effectively without trial and error.

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 has 0% description coverage, with one required parameter 'field_name' undocumented. The description adds minimal semantics by implying the parameter is a field name, but doesn't specify format, constraints, or examples (e.g., whether it's a string ID, display name, or case-sensitive). This fails to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation, leaving the parameter poorly understood.

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 action ('Get properties') and resource ('a specific field by name'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'get_ticket_fields' or 'list_contact_fields' by focusing on individual field properties rather than collections. However, it doesn't specify what type of field (e.g., contact field, ticket field) or what properties are returned, leaving some ambiguity.

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 'get_ticket_fields', 'list_contact_fields', or 'view_ticket_field'. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a field name from another operation) or exclusions. The agent must infer usage from the name alone, which is insufficient for optimal tool selection.

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