ibot_read_custom_fields

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does reasonably well: it discloses the transport (internal panel API, no browser), expected latency (<1s), and an auth prerequisite (session.json, run login.js first). It does not explicitly confirm read-only/non-destructive behavior or rate limits, leaving a modest gap.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action before operational details (API, latency, auth). Every sentence adds operational value; there is no filler or repetition.

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 two-parameter read with no output schema, the definition covers purpose, auth prerequisite, and transport mechanism adequately. The only modest gap is return-format behavior, which is minor for a straightforward field read.

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 100%, so both chat_id and only_filled are already fully documented by the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific syntax or format detail beyond that, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 (reads) and resource (custom fields of a chat) with concrete examples (Company, Email, CRM), which distinguishes it from the sibling ibot_read_tags. It doesn't explicitly name the alternative, so it stops short of a 5, 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?

No explicit when-to-use vs when-not guidance, and it doesn't contrast with ibot_read_tags or ibot_read_messages. It does hint at usage context by noting the auth prerequisite and that chat_id comes from ibot_get_chat_link or ibot_list_chats, which is implied routing rather than stated guidance.

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