get_field_value

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions supporting all field types, which adds useful context about capabilities, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like error handling, permissions needed, rate limits, or what happens if parameters are invalid. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and includes additional useful detail about supported field types, making it appropriately sized and well-structured.

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 (3 required parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It covers the 'what' but misses critical context like parameter semantics, behavioral details, and return values, leaving gaps that could hinder 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no parameter details. The description doesn't add any meaning to the parameters (projectId, itemId, fieldId)—it doesn't explain what these IDs represent, how to obtain them, or their format. This leaves all three parameters undocumented, failing to compensate for the low 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 clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('field value for a GitHub project item'), making the purpose specific and understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'set_field_value' and 'clear_field_value' by focusing on reading, though it doesn't explicitly name these alternatives.

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?

Usage is implied by the description's focus on reading field values, suggesting it's for retrieval rather than modification. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'list_project_fields' or 'get_project', and doesn't mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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