get_doctype_meta

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action ('Get field definitions') without detailing aspects like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or what the output contains (e.g., field types, constraints). For a tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap in 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 appropriately concise and front-loaded, with the main purpose stated first. The additional 'Args' section is brief and relevant, avoiding unnecessary details. However, it could be slightly more structured by integrating the parameter explanation into a single cohesive sentence.

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 low complexity (1 parameter) and the presence of an output schema, the description is somewhat complete but lacks depth. It covers the basic action and parameter but misses behavioral context and usage guidelines. With an output schema, it need not explain return values, but overall completeness is minimal viable.

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 description adds minimal semantics beyond the input schema. It explains that 'doctype' is an 'ERPNext DocType name,' which clarifies the parameter's purpose, but with 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, this is baseline adequate. It does not provide examples or format details, so it meets the minimum without compensating for the schema gap.

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's purpose: 'Get field definitions for a DocType.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('field definitions for a DocType'), making it easy to understand. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'list_doctypes' or 'get_document,' which reduces the score from a 5.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks context on prerequisites, such as needing a valid DocType name, and does not mention related tools like 'list_doctypes' for listing available DocTypes or 'get_document' for retrieving actual data. This leaves the agent without usage direction.

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