list_fields

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It implies a read-only operation by stating 'List', but lacks details on prerequisites, side effects, or scope (e.g., whether it lists all fields or only those with values). The mention of 'cached values' hints at caching behavior but is not elaborated.

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?

A single sentence that is clear and complete. No filler or extraneous information.

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 zero parameters and presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential purpose. It could be enhanced by stating what constitutes a 'field' or if there are any limitations, but sufficient for a simple list tool.

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?

No parameters exist (schema coverage 100%), so baseline is 3 for trivial coverage. The description adds value by specifying the output components ('codes and cached values'), which clarifies purpose beyond the empty schema.

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 verb 'List', the resource 'all fields in the document', and specifies the output includes 'codes and cached values'. It effectively distinguishes from siblings like 'get_field' (single field) and 'list_template_fields' (template-specific fields).

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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., 'get_field' for a specific field, 'list_template_fields' for template fields). The description does not provide any decision-making context or exclusions.

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