pylon_get_custom_field

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It only states 'Get a specific custom field by its ID,' which essentially restates the action already implied by the tool's name. No additional behavioral traits (e.g., error handling, authentication, side-effect safety, rate limits) are disclosed, leaving significant transparency gaps.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant information. It concisely captures the core purpose and uses no unnecessary words, achieving maximum efficiency.

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 tool with only one parameter and no output schema or annotations, the description provides the essential purpose but omits expected return value structure and error behavior. It is minimally adequate for a simple getter but leaves the caller to infer what a successful response looks like and what happens if the ID is not found.

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 already describes custom_field_id as 'The unique identifier of the custom field' with 100% coverage. The description's phrase 'by its ID' adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline for adequate schema coverage without further enrichment.

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 a specific action ('Get') and resource ('a specific custom field'), and specifies that it is retrieved 'by its ID', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like pylon_list_custom_fields (which lists all) and pylon_update_custom_field (which mutates). This clearly identifies the tool's function and scope.

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 implies usage when a specific custom_field_id is known, but does not explicitly mention alternatives like pylon_list_custom_fields for retrieving multiple fields, nor does it provide when-not-to-use guidance. Usage context is clear from the wording but lacks explicit alternatives or exclusions.

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