getFields

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Get' implies a read operation, the description doesn't address authentication requirements (despite a token parameter), rate limits, pagination, error conditions, or what 'fields' actually means in this context. It provides minimal behavioral context beyond the basic operation.

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 extremely concise - a single 5-word sentence that gets straight to the point. There's zero wasted language or unnecessary elaboration. While it may be too brief for complete understanding, it's perfectly efficient in terms of word economy.

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 tool with 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what 'fields' means in this context, what format the response takes, or how this differs from similar data retrieval tools. The combination of sparse description and missing structured metadata creates significant gaps for an agent trying to use this tool effectively.

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 100%, so all parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the structured schema. It doesn't explain relationships between parameters or provide usage examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 resource ('fields for a collection'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from similar siblings like 'getCollections' or 'getItems' - it's unclear if this retrieves metadata about fields versus actual field data. The description is specific but lacks sibling 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'getCollections', 'getItems', and 'getRelations', there's no indication whether this tool is for metadata retrieval, schema inspection, or something else. No prerequisites, exclusions, or comparison to similar tools are mentioned.

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