view_contact_field

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 mentions 'view' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it's a read-only operation, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what the output includes (e.g., field properties, values). This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how to use it effectively.

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, straightforward sentence with no wasted words, making it appropriately concise. However, it's front-loaded with minimal information, which limits its helpfulness despite the efficient structure.

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 tool's complexity (a read operation with 1 parameter), lack of annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover parameter details, behavioral context, or output expectations, making it inadequate for reliable agent use.

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 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, and the description adds no meaning beyond the schema. It doesn't explain what 'contact_field_id' represents (e.g., a numeric ID from Freshdesk, how to obtain it) or its format, failing to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 states the action ('view') and resource ('a contact field in Freshdesk'), providing a basic purpose. However, it's vague about what 'view' entails (e.g., retrieving details vs. just existence) and doesn't differentiate from siblings like 'list_contact_fields' or 'get_contact', which could cause confusion.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'list_contact_fields' (for listing multiple fields) and 'get_contact' (for contact details), the description lacks context on its specific use case, such as retrieving detailed metadata for a single field identified by ID.

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