get_doctype_meta

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. The verb 'Fetch' clearly indicates a read-only operation with no side effects. The phrase 'field/schema definition' adds precision about the nature of the response, though it doesn't discuss error handling or response format (covered by 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?

Two concise sentences front-load the purpose and immediately provide a practical use case. No filler or redundant information; every word earns its place.

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?

The tool is simple (1 parameter, output schema present), and the description covers the primary purpose and usage context. It could mention that the doctype parameter is required, but that is already indicated in the schema, so the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to use it correctly.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'a DocType' which maps to the single 'doctype' parameter, but adds no details about required values or formatting. The meaning is inferable from the parameter name, but the description adds minimal value beyond the schema.

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 uses the specific verb 'Fetch' and clearly identifies the resource as 'field/schema definition (metadata) for a DocType.' This unambiguously distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_document (which fetches a document) and list_documents.

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 explicitly states it is 'Useful for discovering what fields exist before create_document/update_document calls,' providing concrete context for when to use it. It doesn't explicitly mention alternative tools, but the use case is clear enough for an agent to choose it over siblings.

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