field_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does convey a non-mutating read operation by using 'Return,' but it doesn't mention prerequisites such as an active form or a valid session, nor does it clarify error behavior or the relationship between session_id and field_name.

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?

A single sentence that starts with a specific verb and immediately enumerates the result fields. It is appropriately sized, well-structured, and contains 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?

The tool itself is simple and the core purpose plus output items are clear, so the required first call for a basic field_name query is probably usable. However, with no output schema, no annotations, and no explanation of the optional session_id/search_by_title parameters, the description is not fully complete for an agent needing to choose between it and multidimensional inspection tools.

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 for undefined parameter semantics, but it does not. field_name, session_id, and search_by_title are not explained in the description, though the phrase 'form field and the schema property titles provide partial implicit clues. This is not enough to fill a 0% coverage gap.

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 names a specific action ('Return'), a resource ('a form field'), and enumerates the exact diagnostics returned: visibility, availability, readonly, kind, title. This is enough to distinguish it from siblings like field_value_text, field_tooltip, and field_dropdown_items, even though no sibling names are mentioned.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative tool is named. The usage is only implied by the word 'diagnostics,' so an agent has to guess whether this is appropriate versus the many related field inspection tools.

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