list_custom_field_options

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

With no annotations, the description should disclose side effects or safety. It does not mention that this is a read-only operation, nor does it describe pagination, ordering, or error handling for invalid field_id or non-list-type fields.

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 extremely concise (one short sentence), which is good for brevity, but it sacrifices necessary detail. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, but lacks supporting information.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema, the description could be slightly leaner, but it still fails to cover essential behavioral aspects. The tool has one parameter and a simple purpose, yet the description leaves critical gaps like valid field_id range or field type constraints.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no meaning to the field_id parameter beyond what the schema already provides (type integer). The purpose of the parameter is implied but not explicitly clarified.

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 the verb 'list' and the resource 'options for a list-type custom field'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_custom_field_option, delete_custom_field_option, and update_custom_field_option.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites mentioned (e.g., field must be list-type, field_id must exist), and no context on when not to use it.

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