alterios_list_fields

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

The description indicates a read operation ('Read'), which is appropriate for a read-only tool. However, with no annotations provided, it does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as pagination, rate limits, or permissions. The existence of an output schema covers return format, but behavioral context is minimal.

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 very concise at one sentence. However, for a tool with six parameters and no schema descriptions, it is too brief and sacrifices completeness. It could be longer to cover essential details.

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 complexity of six parameters with no schema descriptions, the description is incomplete. It does not explain how filters interact, pagination behavior, or what constitutes 'fields'. The output schema may help with return structure, but usage context is lacking.

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 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It only mentions two parameters (content type and field ID) but does not explain the other four (limit, offset, profile, project_id). The description adds little meaning beyond the schema for the majority of parameters.

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 action (Read) and the resource (Alterios content type fields). It mentions optional filtering by content type or field ID. Among siblings, this tool is uniquely for listing fields, distinguishing it from other list 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 description implies usage for reading fields with optional filters but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. No guidance on prerequisites or exclusions is provided.

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