clio_list_custom_fields

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

The description mentions authentication scope (JWT, tenant, company) but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, whether it returns all custom fields or paginated results, or any side effects. With no annotations, the description should explicitly confirm read-only behavior and potential limits.

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 short, but the first sentence is largely redundant with the tool name. The routing information is not essential for the agent's decision to use the tool. It is concise but wastes space on implementation details instead of purpose and usage.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description provides no context about what custom fields are, what the return value contains, or any constraints (e.g., maximum results). The tool is simple but the description fails to fully compensate for the low schema coverage and missing annotations.

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 parameter 'arguments' is described as 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation,' which adds no meaning beyond the schema. Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description should explain the expected structure of the JSON string, but it does not.

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 merely restates the tool name ('list_custom_fields') without explaining what custom fields are in Clio or distinguishing it from other list tools. It fails to specify the resource being acted upon (e.g., 'list all custom fields defined in Clio').

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 is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, typical use cases, or when not to use it (e.g., if the agent should filter by matter or use a different endpoint).

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