view_contact_field

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. The verb 'view' strongly implies a read-only operation, which is accurate, but no additional behavioral context (e.g., return format, permissions, side effects) is disclosed. This is minimally sufficient but not rich.

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 sentence, immediately front-loading the verb and resource. There is zero redundancy or fluff; it is as concise as possible while still conveying the core purpose.

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?

The tool has one required parameter and no output schema, so the description should at least hint at what the response will contain. It does not. It also provides no usage context among the large sibling set. The description is too sparse to be considered complete.

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 description must compensate by explaining the parameter. It does not mention contact_field_id at all, nor how to obtain it. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema's bare field name and type.

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 uses the specific verb 'view' plus the resource 'contact field', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_contact_fields (which lists all fields) and create/update_contact_field (which mutate). This is a clear and specific purpose statement.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this is for retrieving a single field by ID, nor does it reference list_contact_fields for browsing all fields. Sibling tools are not differentiated in usage.

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