autotask_get_field_info

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 mentions that picklist values are included, but it does not explain what happens on invalid entityType, whether the tool is read-only, or any other behavioral implications (e.g., performance, rate limits). The description is insufficient for a tool without 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 two sentences long, front-loading the core function and then providing usage guidance. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundant or verbose content. Ideal conciseness.

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 tool's simplicity (two parameters, no output schema) and the presence of well-documented schema, the description covers the main use case. However, it could mention that it returns all fields unless filtered, and briefly describe what the response contains (e.g., field names, types, picklist values). The output schema is absent, so description could compensate slightly more.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptive parameter descriptions (entityType with examples, fieldName as optional filter). The description adds 'including picklist values' which reinforces the value of the entityType parameter but does not provide additional semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 retrieves field definitions for an Autotool entity type, including picklist values. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that deal with actual records (search, get, create, update), making its purpose distinct and unambiguous.

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 phrase 'useful for discovering valid values for any picklist field' gives a hint about its utility, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites. More guidance on when to use it before creating entities would improve the score.

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