Get TacticalRMM Custom Fields

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, which cover the safety profile. The description only repeats the read-only nature and adds the endpoint path, which is not a behavioral trait. It does not disclose return format, pagination behavior, or any additional side effects.

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 first sentence is concise and front-loaded, clearly stating the action and resource. The second sentence is redundant with the readOnlyHint annotation, adding minor waste, but the overall description remains short and readable.

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-only list tool with no required parameters and an output format option, the description is adequate. It does not explicitly describe the return structure, but the verb 'List' and the schema's response_format parameter provide sufficient context. The lack of an output schema is not a major gap given the tool's simplicity.

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?

All three parameters have schema descriptions providing 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already documents for limit, offset, and response_format.

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 TacticalRMM custom fields, including the API endpoint path '/core/customfields/'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling list tools, which target other resources such as clients, agents, or sites.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. However, the resource focus on custom fields implies its use case, but no contrast with sibling tools is provided.

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