Get Field

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

No annotations provided, so description must stand alone. It mentions return format (XML with constraints/options/dependencies) but does not disclose side effects, auth needs, or rate limits. It implies a read operation but lacks explicit safety guarantees.

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?

Two sentences, no filler. First sentence states purpose and scope, second provides usage guidance and output format. Efficient 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?

Description covers return format (XML with constraints/options/dependencies) which compensates for lack of output schema. It mentions dependencies and suggested values. However, it does not explain complex behavior like what 'dependencies' entail or error handling.

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 coverage is 100%, but description adds value by explaining eid comes from get_form or page snapshot, and page_id is optional. This contextualizes parameters beyond the schema.

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 gets detailed info about one form field by eid, including purpose, formats, dependencies, and suggested values. It distinguishes from siblings like get_form and get_element by focusing on single field details.

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 explicitly says to use when get_form flags a field as ambiguous or invalid before typing into it. This provides clear use context, though it omits when not to use or alternatives.

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