accelo_list_extension_fields

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It confirms this is a read/list operation only by the verb 'List' and discloses nothing about pagination, permissions, return shape, or whether fields are user-defined. For a tool with zero annotation coverage this is thin.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and kept to a short Args block with no filler. Slightly terse but well-structured and appropriately sized.

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 simple list tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is minimally adequate but omits what an 'extension field' is and what the listing returns. The missing return-shape context is a real gap given no output schema exists.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it does partially: it enumerates the valid object_type values (assets, contracts, issues, jobs, prospects), which the schema does not. However 'fields: Additional fields to return' is vague and does not clarify format or acceptable values.

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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (extension fields) scoped to an object type, which clearly distinguishes it from write siblings like accelo_set_extension_value. It does not explicitly contrast itself with accelo_get_extension_values or accelo_list_profile_fields, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus the related extension/profile siblings, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The only guidance is the implied list of valid object_type values, which is a validation aid rather than usage direction.

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