redmine_custom_fields

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 states 'Read' implying read-only, but does not mention pagination behavior, authentication needs, or any side effects. The lack of detail leaves significant behavioral ambiguity.

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 (5 words) but is underspecified rather than efficiently complete. It is a fragment lacking structure, and every word could be expanded to add value.

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 no output schema, multiple parameters (including complex 'query' and 'headers'), and no behavioral hints, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain return values, pagination, or how the tool fits into the overall Redmine domain.

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 only 40%, yet the description adds no parameter information beyond the schema. For example, 'limit' and 'max_pages' control pagination, but the description does not explain them. The description fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 'Read custom fields: list' specifies a clear verb ('Read') and resource ('custom fields'), indicating a list operation. However, it is minimal and does not distinguish from sibling tools that also read lists, such as redmine_issues or redmine_projects.

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. There is no mention of prerequisite, context, or when not to use it, leaving the agent without decision support.

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