spoolman_list_fields

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It implies a read-only listing via 'List all' and clarifies the scope to 'custom extra fields', but does not disclose return format, ordering, pagination, or whether built-in fields are excluded. Sufficient for a simple read operation but lacks depth.

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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, avoiding any redundant or filler content. It effectively communicates the essential information in minimal space.

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 one-parameter list tool without an output schema, the description adequately defines what is listed and the entity-type parameter. It could optionally mention the return format or behavior, but given the tool's simplicity, the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to use it correctly.

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 input schema fully documents the single parameter, including an enum and explicit descriptions for each value. The description's parenthetical '(vendor, filament, or spool)' simply restates the enum, adding no new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate given complete 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 clearly states the action ('List'), the resource ('all custom extra fields'), and the scope ('for a given entity type'). It distinguishes this tool from sibling list tools (e.g., list_vendors, list_filaments) by focusing on extra fields rather than the entities themselves.

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 specifies the required context—given an entity type—which serves as a usage constraint. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or contrast with alternatives, but the entity-type limitation gives clear guidance for correct invocation.

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