get_field

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It merely states 'get details', implying a read operation, but lacks specifics about authentication, rate limits, or what constitutes 'details'. The description is too minimal to provide adequate transparency.

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 with a single sentence that front-loads the purpose. However, it is too sparse, failing to provide essential context. It earns a 3 as it is efficiently short but lacks necessary detail.

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 simplicity of the tool (1 parameter, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It does not specify what 'details' includes, nor does it differentiate from the many sibling field tools (e.g., get_field_related, get_field_summary). The context of the Metabase API is present, but not sufficiently leveraged.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description should compensate by explaining the parameter. It only mentions 'by ID', which is already implied by the schema's required 'id' field. The schema itself has a description 'Field ID' for the property, so the tool description adds no extra meaning.

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 verb 'Get', resource 'field', and the source 'Metabase'. It conveys the basic purpose of retrieving field details by ID. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like get_field_related or get_field_summary, which reduces clarity in a context with many similar tools.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not provide any context about prerequisites, limitations, or when not to use it. The description offers no comparative information despite many sibling field-related tools.

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