get_current_field

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden of explaining behavior. The description implies a read-only lookup, but does not disclose whether the cursor must be inside a field, what happens if no field is at the cursor, or whether any state changes occur. The vague 'option: Detection option' also obscures behavior.

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 short and front-loaded with the main purpose. The Args block is compact and readable, though it partly repeats the schema. It earns its place with the provenance hint for doc_id, but the option explanation adds no real value.

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 there are no annotations and one parameter is nearly undocumented, the description leaves too much to inference. The output schema may explain return values, but the description still lacks prerequisites, edge-case behavior, and any guidance on the option parameter. An agent would likely need to experiment to use this tool 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds minimal value: doc_id is identified as a document ID from open_document, which is helpful, but 'option' is only labeled 'Detection option' with no meaning or accepted values. The parameter semantics are therefore under-specified.

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 job: get the field name at the current cursor position. It uses a specific verb and resource, and is distinguishable from siblings like set_current_field_name or get_field_list. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from nearby field-related tools.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as move_to_field, get_field_list, or get_selection_info. The parameter list says doc_id comes from open_document, but gives no context about prerequisites, cursor state requirements, or when another tool would be more appropriate.

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