get_field_values

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explains the return of distinct values and the server targeting, but does not disclose behavior such as maximum values returned, performance implications, or error handling. The example is helpful but insufficient for complete 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 concise with three sentences, each adding value. The first sentence clearly states the purpose, followed by an example and parameter clarification. No unnecessary words.

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 has 3 parameters with no annotations, and an output schema exists. The description covers field and server sufficiently but lacks detail on index_pattern and return format. While the output schema can explain return values, the description could be more complete about prerequisites (e.g., index must exist) or limitations.

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 for parameters. The description adds meaning for 'field' (suffix usage, example) and 'server' (default active/server), but 'index_pattern' is only implicitly mentioned in the example. Overall, it compensates well for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 tool returns distinct values for a field, which is a specific verb+resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'get_field_values_with_count' which also returns values but with counts.

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 provides an example and hints at using .keyword suffix for text fields, but does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_field_values_with_count or search_logs. No when-not or exclusion criteria are given.

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