Get Form Field

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds no behavioral context of its own — no note on error behavior for a bad id, no mention of what `include` expands, no return-shape hint beyond the output schema.

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?

A single tight sentence with no filler, and the resource and lookup key are front-loaded. It is efficient but so minimal that there is no room for anything the agent actually needs beyond the schema.

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?

An output schema exists and schema coverage is 100%, so return values and parameter formats are handled elsewhere. The remaining gap is the `include` parameter's practical effect (options vs positions expansion) and the relationship to get_form_field_option / get_form_field_placement, neither of which the description touches.

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 both `id` (uuid or slug, with the explicit 'no form_field_id argument' note) and the `include` enum are fully documented in the schema. The description's 'by id' merely restates the schema, earning the baseline 3.

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?

States a specific verb ('Retrieves') and a specific resource ('a specific form_field by id'), so an agent knows exactly what it returns. It does not differentiate from siblings like list_form_fields or get_form_field_option, which are the obvious confusions.

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 when-to-use, when-not, or alternative is given; the agent must infer that this is the id-based single-record fetch versus list_form_fields. Nothing addresses prerequisites such as whether the form field must belong to a form set the caller can access.

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