listCustomFields

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It simply states 'List all custom fields' with no disclosure of return format, pagination, ordering, or potential errors. The agent is left without expectations for the response or any side effects, though 'list' implies a read operation.

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, direct sentence that states the verb, resource, and scope. It wastes no words and is appropriately concise for a parameterless list operation.

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?

The tool is simple (no params, no output schema, no annotations), but the description still lacks detail about what the response will contain (e.g., an array of custom field objects). An agent would benefit from knowing the return shape or any filtering/pagination behavior. It is minimally adequate but not fully informative.

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?

There are no parameters in the schema, so the description has nothing to add there. The baseline for 0 params is 4; the word 'all' is the only semantic content, which is sufficient since there is nothing to configure.

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 uses the specific verb 'List' and identifies the resource as 'custom fields', with the scope 'all' — clearly distinguishing it from getCustomField (single resource) and create/update operations. This is a precise statement of the tool's function.

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 offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives like getCustomField. The 'all' scope implies it returns the full set, but there is no statement about trade-offs or prerequisites. Usage is only implied by the list/get naming convention.

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