clokio_get_project_custom_fields

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: results are ordered by sort order, and an API key sees only PUBLIC fields. This visibility restriction is a genuinely important operational caveat. No contradiction with 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?

Two short sentences carry all the essential information with no filler. The sort-order behavior is front-loaded, and the visibility restriction is stated separately and clearly. Every clause 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 read-only tool with one required integer parameter, the description and annotations are sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly: it knows the resource, the sorting behavior, the visibility restriction, and that the operation is non-destructive. No output schema exists, but the description does not need to enumerate return fields for a basic getter.

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%, and the description does not compensate by explaining the project_id parameter's meaning, format, or constraints. The parameter name is self-explanatory, but the description itself adds no parameter-level semantics beyond implying that the fields belong to a project.

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 identifies the resource as 'a project's custom-field definitions' and adds the useful detail that they are returned 'in sort order.' It does not state an explicit verb like 'retrieves,' but the tool name supplies 'get,' and the phrasing is specific enough to distinguish this from sibling tools such as get_project_statuses and get_project_contacts.

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?

No guidance is given for when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention sibling tools, exclusions, or conditions under which a different tool would be more appropriate, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the resource name.

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