common-get-item-field-by-path

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'gets' implying a read operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like permissions required, rate limits, or what happens if the path is invalid. The description is minimal and fails to add meaningful context beyond the basic action, leaving gaps in understanding how the tool behaves in practice.

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 that directly states the tool's action. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids unnecessary words. However, it could be more structured by clarifying the output or usage context, but it earns high marks for brevity and clarity within its limited scope.

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 complexity of 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., field data structure), how errors are handled, or the significance of parameters like 'language' and 'database'. For a tool with rich input options, this minimal description leaves too much undefined for effective agent use.

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 the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining interactions between parameters (e.g., how 'name' wildcards work with 'returnType'). Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description doesn't compensate or enhance understanding.

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 the tool 'gets item fields' by path, which clarifies the verb and resource. However, it's vague about what 'item fields' are and the distinction between 'names', 'fields', or 'template fields' is unclear. It doesn't differentiate from siblings like 'common-get-item-field-by-id' or 'common-get-item-template-by-path', leaving ambiguity in its specific purpose.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools (e.g., 'common-get-item-field-by-id', 'common-get-item-template-by-path'), the description lacks context for choosing this one based on path-based retrieval or field types. There's no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or comparative use cases.

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