kommo_custom_fields

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

No annotations are provided, so the description should cover behavioral traits. It states the tool lists custom fields, which implies a read-only operation, but does not explicitly confirm idempotency, rate limits, or authorization requirements. Some behavioral context is missing.

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 sentences with no unnecessary words. The first sentence states the function, the second gives a concrete use case. Highly efficient.

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?

With only one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the purpose and usage context adequately. It could optionally describe the return format, but it's not essential given the simplicity of the tool.

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 has one parameter 'entity' with enum values, but no descriptions. The description adds meaning by listing the options (leads/contacts/companies) and explains the parameter's role in specifying which entity's custom fields to list. This compensates for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 clearly states it lists custom fields for leads, contacts, or companies, and the purpose of finding field_id. It distinguishes from sibling tools like kommo_create_custom_field and kommo_update_custom_field by indicating this is a retrieval operation.

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 gives explicit guidance to use the tool to find field_id, which implies it should be used when you need to retrieve field identifiers. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it, the purpose is clear enough to differentiate from modification tools.

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