get_field_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. 'Get list' clearly implies a read-only operation, and it usefully specifies that doc_id comes from open_document. However, it does not explicitly state that the document is not modified, nor does it describe ordering or failure behavior, though the output schema may cover return structure.

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 compact and front-loaded with a clear one-sentence purpose followed by a concise argument list. Every line adds useful information and there is no filler.

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 list/getter tool, the parameter semantics are well covered and an output schema exists, so return-value details are unnecessary. The main missing piece is usage context relative to sibling field tools, but that is not essential for a correct invocation.

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%, but the description fully compensates by explaining all three parameters: doc_id is the document handle from open_document, option maps 0 to all fields and 1 to clickhere-only fields, and direction maps 0 to horizontal and 1 to vertical. This gives the agent everything needed to set parameters correctly.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'list of all fields in the document', making the tool's core purpose unambiguous. It does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling field-related tools like get_field_text or field_exists, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as field_exists, get_field_text, or get_current_field. The description only explains what the tool does and its parameters, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context for calling it.

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