Get Meta Fields

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the return format (array with id, type, name, optional alias) and implies a read-only 'discover' operation. However, it does not explicitly state authentication needs, rate limits, or side effects, leaving some behavioral transparency gaps. The description adds value beyond the purpose but does not fully cover potential behavioral concerns.

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 only two sentences and front-loads the core purpose. It wastes no words while conveying the tool's scope and output. Every phrase contributes to understanding.

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 simplicity (no params, no output schema, no annotations), the description explains the return shape and its purpose. It is complete for a metadata-discovery tool. A minor gap is that it does not specify whether this includes custom fields or requires any special permissions, but the tool is still likely usable without that detail.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema contains nothing to explain. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4. The description adds useful context by detailing the structure of the returned field definitions, which is more than the empty schema provides.

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 function: 'Discover all available BambooHR data fields.' It uses a specific verb ('discover') and resource ('data fields'), and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools that focus on specific employee records (e.g., get-employee, get-employee-photo) by returning field metadata rather than actual employee data.

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 understanding what employee data fields can be requested.' This implies using the tool before querying employee data. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, falling short of the explicit when/when-not guidance required for a 5.

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