Get custom field

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral value by specifying that the response includes the definition and any select options, clarifying the return content beyond the annotations.

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 sentence with no filler or redundant phrasing. It front-loads the key information and 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?

For a simple get-by-id operation with rich read-only annotations, the description is adequate. It conveys the return type and a key inclusion (select options), though without an output schema it could elaborate on other fields of the custom field definition.

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%, yet the description does not mention the required 'id' parameter or explain what it identifies. Although the parameter name is self-explanatory, the description fails to compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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 identifies a single custom field definition as the resource and notes the inclusion of select options, distinguishing it from list_custom_fields. However, it lacks an explicit action verb (e.g., 'Retrieves'), relying on the tool name to convey the operation.

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 gives no explicit when-to-use or alternative guidance. While 'One custom field definition' hints at singular retrieval versus list_custom_fields, it does not state when to choose this tool over siblings or mention prerequisites such as requiring the custom field's id.

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