check_field_references

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return behavior ('Returns all fields whose branching_logic or calculated formula reference field_name') and implies a read-only operation via verbs like 'Find' and 'Returns'. It does not explicitly state 'does not modify' but the purpose and actions are clear enough.

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 concise and well-structured: purpose (first sentence), usage guidance (second sentence), Args and Returns sections. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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 tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description covers purpose, when to use, parameter meaning, and return format. It is fully contextual for the task at hand.

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 compensates by defining field_name as 'Variable name to search for' in the Args section. This adds meaning beyond the schema's simple title 'Field Name'.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Find every field that references a given field in branching logic or calculations.' It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like validate_branching_logic (which validates logic) and remove_field (which removes fields) by focusing on reference detection.

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: 'Run this before removing or renaming a field to avoid breaking the project.' It tells the agent when to use the tool but does not mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it falls short of an explicit 5.

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