get_page_fields

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

No annotations provided, so description must carry full burden. It states returns page definition with field controls and bindings, but does not disclose read-only nature, permissions, or side effects. Minimal behavioral information.

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?

Three concise sentences: main purpose, Args, Returns. No fluff, front-loaded with key action. Efficient for a simple tool.

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?

Tool has 1 param, no output schema, no annotations. Description covers input and output adequately. Lacks error handling or edge cases but adequate for a straightforward retrieval tool.

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?

Single parameter page_name with examples like 'JOB_DATA1', 'PERSONAL_DATA_1' adds meaning beyond schema's bare 'string' type and 'Page Name' title. Schema coverage 0% makes description valuable. Could mention case sensitivity or format but sufficient.

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?

Clearly states it gets all fields on a PeopleSoft page with properties. Verb 'get' and resource 'fields on a PeopleSoft page' are specific. Distinguishes from siblings like get_page_field_bindings by focusing on all fields rather than bindings, but does not explicitly differentiate.

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 on when to use this tool versus siblings like get_field_usage or get_page_field_bindings. Does not mention prerequisites or context. Simply states what it does.

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