spatial_get_field

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds no additional behavioral details, such as error handling or return format, but it does not contradict the annotations. Since the safety is covered, a baseline score is appropriate.

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 that front-loads the core purpose and includes an example. There is zero wasted language, making it highly concise 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?

For a simple getter with one required parameter and no output schema, the description is largely adequate. It doesn't mention return details or error behavior, but these are less critical given the tool's simplicity and the annotations covering safety. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to use correctly.

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 schema has no descriptions for parameters (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It gives an example id ('cl22') and says 'by id', but it does not explain what the id refers to (field id) or its full format. This provides minimal additional meaning 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 a specific verb (get) and resource (field) and identifies the selection criterion (by id) with an example id format. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like spatial_list_fields and spatial_get_layer, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 field id is known, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like spatial_list_fields or spatial_get_layer. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided, leaving the context to inference.

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