list_fields

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

Description explicitly states it lists fields with codes and cached values, implying a read-only operation. However, without annotations, it falls short of fully disclosing safety or side effects, but the intent is clear and no contradictions exist.

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?

Single, concise sentence that front-loads the purpose. Every word is necessary, and the structure is efficient for an AI agent to quickly understand.

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 tool has an output schema, the description sufficiently explains the operation and its output. No additional info about return values is needed. It is complete for a simple list 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?

No parameters are defined, but the description adds value by clarifying that the output includes codes and cached values, which goes beyond the empty schema. Schema coverage is 100% but empty; the description compensates fully.

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?

Description clearly states the tool lists all fields in the document with their codes and cached values. It distinguishes itself from sibling list tools like list_bookmarks or list_hyperlinks by specifying the exact resource (fields) and what is returned.

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 like get_field or other list tools. The description lacks context on its scope (e.g., all fields vs specific ones) and does not mention cases when it should be avoided.

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