read_custom_field_options

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

Annotations already cover the read-only safety profile, and the description adds useful behavioral detail: returned fields include their type, dropdowns include allowed values, and passing field filters to a single field. It does not disclose pagination, limits, or the open-world caveat that allowed values may not be exhaustive, but it goes beyond the annotations.

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?

Two short sentences convey the resource, output contents, and the key filtering behavior without filler. An explicit verb like 'Lists' would strengthen it, but it is compact and front-loaded.

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 read-only metadata lookup, the description provides the core purpose, an optional field filter, and output content, while annotations supply the safety context. However, with no output schema and four undocumented optional parameters, there is still ambiguity about how id is used and exactly what is returned when no arguments are provided.

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 provides no parameter descriptions, so the description must compensate. It clarifies the field parameter and ties type/project to the scoping context, but the id parameter is left unexplained and no valid values or expected formats are given for type and field.

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 names the resource—custom fields for a card type or a project entity type—and specifies what is returned: field types and allowed dropdown values. It is clear, though phrased as a noun phrase rather than an explicit verb and does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling read tools.

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 only guidance is 'Pass field to see one field,' which is parameter-level filtering rather than tool-selection guidance. The description never states when to use this tool instead of other read_* tools, when it should precede write_set_custom_fields, or what exclusions or prerequisites apply.

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