grocy_userfields_get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description contributes nothing beyond the raw endpoint path — no note on whether an empty result is possible for objects without userfields, nor on auth requirements. It adds minimal value past the structured data.

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?

Two short fragments with no waste and the resource named up front. The endpoint-path sentence duplicates information rather than front-loading additional meaning, but the definition is not bloated.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description is the only place a return-value shape (a map of userfield keys to values) could be conveyed, and it is not. Annotations cover safety, which limits the damage, but an agent cannot predict the response format from this definition.

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% with a documented enum for entity and a constraint (exclusiveMinimum 0) on object_id, so the schema carries the meaning. The description merely restates the path template and adds no semantics beyond it; baseline 3 applies.

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 names the resource ('userfield values') and scopes it to 'one object', and the endpoint path /api/userfields/{entity}/{objectId} clarifies the addressing model. But it is a noun fragment with no verb (get/retrieve), and it does nothing to distinguish itself from sibling grocy_userfields_put or from grocy_objects_get. Purpose is inferable but not stated crisply.

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 statement of when to use this versus alternatives such as grocy_objects_get or grocy_userfields_put. The agent must infer from the tool name alone that this is the read counterpart to the put tool.

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