redmine_custom_fields_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden; mentioning 'GET /custom_fields.json' does convey a read-only operation. However, it does not disclose authentication needs, response shape, pagination, or the effect of the optional type filter.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler; it communicates the operation and the underlying endpoint efficiently.

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?

Adequate for a simple, optional-parameter list tool, since the core operation is clear. But the opaque 'type' parameter and lack of return-value/pagination context leave gaps an agent may need to resolve.

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 schema only defines 'type' as a string with no description, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not compensate by explaining valid values or filtering behavior, so an agent cannot know how to use the only parameter correctly.

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?

States a specific action ('List') on a distinct resource ('custom fields') and gives the canonical endpoint. This clearly distinguishes it from the many sibling list tools for issues, projects, users, and other resources.

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?

Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or how the optional 'type' parameter affects the result. The resource name makes basic use obvious, but explicit usage conditions and exclusions are absent.

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