get_metadata_field

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get details,' which implies a read-only operation, but it does not clarify what 'details' include, whether the field must exist, what errors may occur, or how this differs from other metadata read endpoints.

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 a single, concise sentence with no redundant wording. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized, though the vagueness of 'details' limits its usefulness.

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 is simple (one parameter, no nested objects), but there is no output schema and no annotations. The description should clarify what 'details' are returned and how this tool relates to similar metadata-focused tools; it does neither, leaving an agent with an incomplete picture.

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?

The schema fully describes the only parameter, field_name ('The metadata field name'), so the description does not need to add much. It adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already gives, which matches the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 clear action ('Get details') and a resource ('specific metadata field'), so an agent can tell it retrieves rather than lists or creates something. However, it does not differentiate it from siblings like get_metadata_view or list_metadata_fields, which could also return metadata field details.

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 over alternatives such as get_metadata_view, get_asset_metadata, or list_metadata_fields. An agent would have to infer the appropriate context from the tool name and sibling list rather than from explicit instructions.

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