nucleo-fields-get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: absent values are returned as null, and the 'hash' enables optimistic-concurrency control with fields-set. It does not say what the response object looks like structurally, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with what is returned and scoped by identifier, then the null behavior, then the hash/base contract. Every sentence carries information an agent needs and none are 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?

With no output schema, the description does the work of explaining returns: definitions plus values, nulls for unset fields, and a hash. It is nearly complete for a simple two-parameter read, with the remaining gap being the response's internal shape and the postId/termId precedence question.

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 coverage is 100%, but the schema descriptions are minimal ('Post ID.', 'Term ID.'), so the description's contribution is mostly restating that these select a post versus a term. The 'or' framing hints at mutual exclusivity without stating it or giving precedence rules, so it adds only marginal meaning beyond the schema.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: it 'returns the field definitions and the saved values' of a post or term, keyed by postId/termId. That is clearly distinguishable from nucleo-fields-set, which it explicitly names, though it does not distinguish itself from nucleo-bind-fields or nucleo-content-get.

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?

It implies the read-before-write workflow by explaining that the returned 'hash' should be passed as 'base' to fields-set for a conditional save, which is genuine usage guidance. However, it never states which parameter to pick when both postId and termId are optional, nor what happens if both or neither are supplied — a real ambiguity for a 0-required-parameter tool.

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