List Custom Fields

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

No annotations are provided, so description carries full burden. It describes listing all custom fields for a project but doesn't disclose whether disabled fields are included or if there's any filtering/pagination. The note about 'only enabled fields should be used' suggests the list may contain disabled ones, which is ambiguous.

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?

Description is concise (3 sentences) and front-loaded with main action. Every sentence adds value: purpose, usage, and a constraint. No fluff.

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 simple single-parameter tool with output schema, description covers core usage and ties back to sibling tools. Could be slightly improved by clarifying list behavior regarding disabled fields, but sufficient for the 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% (projectCode has a description). Description adds usage context for the parameter's purpose but doesn't elaborate on the parameter itself beyond the schema. Baseline 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?

Description clearly states it lists custom fields for a project, and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_folders by focusing on custom fields. It specifies the resource ('custom fields') and the scope ('for a project').

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?

Explicitly states when to use (when creating/updating test cases) and provides usage guidance (use systemName as key, only enabled fields). Lacks explicit 'when not to use' or alternative tools, but context is clear.

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