list_fields

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the output includes types, metadata, and schema configuration, but does not disclose read-only behavior, pagination, ordering, or any side effects. For a operation that likely reads data, the agent lacks important behavioral cues.

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 a single sentence that is direct and free of unnecessary words. It efficiently communicates the tool's purpose without repetition or fluff.

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 lack of output schema and annotations, the description should explain the structure of the returned data more thoroughly. It mentions 'types, metadata, and schema configuration', but this is vague. An agent would benefit from knowing whether the output is a list of field objects, what keys each object has, or any limits.

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 single parameter 'collection' is fully described in the schema as 'Collection name'. The description repeats this by saying 'in a specific collection', but adds no additional semantics or constraints beyond the schema. Since schema coverage is 100%, the description provides marginal value here.

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 ('list'), the resource ('fields'), and the scope ('in a specific collection'). It also mentions the content returned (types, metadata, schema configuration), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_collections or list_relations.

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. There are sibling tools like create_field, delete_field, and update_field, but the description does not provide any context about when to list fields instead of using those tools.

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