Get ACF Field Group

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

The description only says 'Read,' which indicates a safe operation, but with no annotations provided, it should disclose more: e.g., what happens if the key doesn't exist, whether it requires authentication, or if it is idempotent. The description is too minimal for an agent to understand the tool's full behavioral traits.

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 a single, concise sentence that gets to the point immediately. It uses active voice and front-loads the verb. However, it might be too brief given the lack of other documentation, but for conciseness it earns a high score.

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 the complexity (one required parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is insufficient. It should explain what a field group is, what the return value looks like, or any prerequisites (e.g., must have JSON sync enabled). The description is too bare to be complete.

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 mentions 'by key,' but does not explain what the key represents, its format, or how to obtain it. For example, 'key' is likely the field group key, but this is not clarified. The description adds minimal meaning 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 clearly states the action ('Read'), the resource ('ACF field group'), and the scope ('by key from Local JSON'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'acf_list_field_groups' which lists all groups, and 'acf_create_field_group' which is for creation.

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 to retrieve a single field group by key, but it does not explicitly specify when to use it versus alternatives. For example, it could mention 'Use this when you need a specific field group; use acf_list_field_groups to retrieve all.' No exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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