get_list_custom_fields

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It doesn't describe the return shape, whether fields include metadata like type/options, sort order, or pagination behavior. For a read tool with zero annotation coverage, minimal behavioral context is provided.

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, efficient sentence that states exactly what the tool does. No filler or redundant content. Appropriately sized for a simple read operation with one parameter.

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 tool with one param and full schema coverage, this is marginally adequate. However, given no output schema and no annotations, the description could have added value by describing what fields return (names, types, options) or noting whether this is needed before setting custom field values. It's minimal but sufficient for a simple, self-explanatory GET operation.

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 a single list_id parameter that has a clear description ('The list ID'). With full schema coverage and one simple parameter, the baseline 3 applies; the description adds nothing beyond schema but doesn't need to for a single obvious parameter.

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 'Get all custom fields available for a list' clearly states the verb (Get) and resource (custom fields scoped to a list). It's a clear statement of purpose but doesn't distinguish it from siblings like get_custom_task_types or set_custom_field_value, though those are distinct enough operations.

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. It doesn't clarify when this should be used before set_custom_field_value, or mention any prerequisites (e.g., whether the list needs to exist or whether custom fields need to be configured first).

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