get_fields

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns field metadata and specifies the output structure, but it does not mention any read-only behavior, required permissions, or potential side effects. The transparency is adequate but minimal.

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 extremely concise: two sentences with no fluff. The first sentence states the purpose and scope, the second adds parameter details and return format. It is front-loaded and every word is necessary.

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 no output schema, the description provides a clear picture of the return structure (list of objects with specific keys). It covers both parameters adequately. Minor improvement would be to note any ordering or limits, but it is nearly complete for a straightforward metadata 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the 'model' parameter implicitly by context, and explicitly describes 'view_type' with valid values and default. It adds value beyond the raw schema by explaining the return structure.

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 tool's function: returning metadata for all fields visible in a model's form or list view. It specifies the key parameter (view_type) and the return format, distinguishing it from siblings like get_model_actions which deal with actions rather than fields.

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 implies using this tool when you need field metadata for a specific view type, but it does not explicitly state when to avoid it, mention prerequisites, or compare with alternatives such as get_model_interface. This leaves room for ambiguity.

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