get_form_fields

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: it specifies this only works for production environments (not preview), mentions error conditions when apps don't exist in production, and implies this is a read operation through context. It doesn't mention rate limits, authentication needs, or response format details.

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 perfectly concise with two sentences that each earn their place: the first states the core purpose, the second provides critical usage guidance and alternative tool reference. No wasted words, front-loaded with essential information.

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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description provides excellent context about environment constraints and sibling alternatives. It doesn't describe the return format or structure of the form field information, which would be helpful but isn't critical given the tool's relative simplicity.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage (the single parameter 'app_id' is fully documented in the schema as 'kintoneアプリのID'), the description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema already provides. The baseline score of 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 specific action ('取得します' - retrieves) and resource ('kintoneアプリのフォームフィールド情報' - kintone app form field information). It explicitly distinguishes from its sibling tool 'get_preview_form_fields' by specifying this works only for production environments.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('対象アプリが本番環境に存在しない場合はエラーとなります' - errors if target app doesn't exist in production) and when to use an alternative ('プレビュー環境の情報を取得したい場合は get_preview_form_fields を使用してください' - use get_preview_form_fields for preview environment information).

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