wetrack_get_metadata_field

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. 'Get' makes the read-only intent and lookup-by-ID behavior apparent, but it does not describe error behavior for missing/invalid IDs, auth requirements, or whether the returned definition includes all field properties. This is a moderate gap for an otherwise simple getter.

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 very short and front-loaded: the first sentence captures the purpose, and the second documents the sole parameter. Since the schema has no property descriptions, the Args line is justified and not redundant.

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?

For a single-parameter getter with an output schema, the description provides enough to invoke the tool correctly: the required ID and the returned concept. It omits error behavior and explicit alternative routing, but those are minor for this low-complexity operation.

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?

The description identifies field_id as 'Integer ID of the metadata field,' which adds slightly more context than the schema's bare type and title. However, with 0% schema description coverage, the description only minimally compensates; it does not add format, range, source, or example information beyond what the name already suggests.

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 ('Get'), a specific resource ('metadata field definition'), and a precise selection criteria ('by ID'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like wetrack_list_metadata_fields, wetrack_create_metadata_field, and wetrack_update_metadata_field.

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 makes the usage context clear: use this when you need a single metadata field definition identified by an integer ID. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the 'single... by ID' phrasing provides sufficient context for an agent to select it over list/create/update siblings.

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