Get Custom Field

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral context by enumerating the returned fields (including nested enum_options with gid, name, color, enabled), which is valuable given there is no output schema. It does not contradict any 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, front-loaded with the core purpose and return details. Every sentence serves a purpose: the first states what it does, the second explains the use case. No redundant or filler content.

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 retrieval tool with 2 params, no output schema, and strong annotations, the description is complete. It covers the action, return fields, and usage context (obtaining enum option GIDs). It does not need to explain permissions or error cases given the tool's low complexity.

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 both parameters well-described (custom_field_gid and opt_fields). The description does not add parameter semantics beyond the schema; the mention of 'by GID' reiterates the parameter. Since the schema fully documents the parameters, a baseline score of 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's function: 'Get full details for a custom field by GID' and lists the specific return fields (name, type, description, enum_options, precision, format). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like asana_get_custom_fields_for_workspace, which retrieves multiple custom 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?

The description provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool: 'Use this to get enum option GIDs before setting custom field values on tasks.' It also references how to obtain the required custom_field_gid via asana_get_custom_fields_for_workspace. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or alternatives, so it misses the top score.

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