qobrix_get_field_options

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return structure ('Returns { data: [...], pagination: { ... } }'), the per-item fields (id, resource, field, label, value), and provides example queries. This gives useful behavioral insight beyond the name, though it doesn't mention pagination mechanics or potential errors.

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 and front-loaded. It starts with purpose, then return format, item fields, and key examples, ending with a pairing suggestion. Every sentence contributes practical value, and the examples are concise yet informative.

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 read-only lookup tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description is complete. It covers purpose, return format, item structure, practical usage examples, and complementary tools. There are no significant gaps given the tool's simplicity.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by providing concrete search expression examples that clarify the 'search' parameter semantics, and it explains output item structure, which helps infer parameter usage. It doesn't add much beyond schema for page/limit but the examples are a meaningful addition.

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's purpose: 'Get dropdown/enum field options — discover valid values for status fields, types, and categories.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and the mention of enum options distinguishes it from sibling tools like qobrix_get_schema and qobrix_top_values.

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 clear context: 'Essential for building correct search expressions in any workflow' and shows concrete examples for common use cases (listing statuses, lead statuses, etc.). It also suggests pairing with qobrix_get_schema for complete field discovery, implying when to use this tool versus the alternative. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it.

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