get_field_creation_tool_description

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 states this is a 'get' operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't provide any additional context about what exactly is returned, format considerations, or any limitations. The description doesn't contradict annotations (since there are none), but provides only basic behavioral information without details about the nature of the description being retrieved.

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, efficient sentence in Japanese that directly states the tool's function. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool with no parameters. While it could be more informative, it doesn't contain unnecessary verbiage or structural issues. The sentence earns its place by at least stating the basic operation.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. While it states what the tool does at a basic level, it doesn't explain what kind of description is returned, in what format, or how this differs from other documentation tools on the server. For a tool that presumably returns metadata/documentation, more context about the return value would be helpful since there's no output schema to provide that information.

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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the absence of parameters. The description doesn't need to compensate for any parameter gaps. The baseline for 0 parameters with high schema coverage is 4, as the description appropriately doesn't waste space discussing non-existent parameters.

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 'フィールド作成ツールの説明を取得します' (Gets the description of the field creation tool) is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'get_field_creation_tool_description' in Japanese. It specifies the verb '取得します' (gets) and resource 'フィールド作成ツールの説明' (field creation tool description), but doesn't provide meaningful differentiation from what the name already conveys. This is a minimal restatement rather than a clear purpose explanation.

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. It doesn't mention any context, prerequisites, or relationships to sibling tools like 'get_field_type_documentation' or 'get_documentation_tool_description' that might serve similar documentation purposes. There's no indication of when this specific tool should be selected over other documentation-related tools in the server.

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