list_report_fields

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It reveals that results are metadata-cached (performance/consistency behavior) and compact by default (response format). This goes beyond a simple restatement and gives useful context, though it does not mention potential staleness or whether the operation is read-only, which is likely but not stated.

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 exceptionally concise at two sentences, with the main purpose front-loaded and no filler. Every word earns its place, and the additional behavioral note is tightly integrated.

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 one-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it lists, the cached nature, and the default compact format. It lacks information about pagination or response shape, but given the low complexity and the parameter's schema description, the description is largely sufficient for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 already provides 100% coverage for the sole parameter 'include_details' with a clear description, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds contextual value by noting 'compact by default,' which pairs with the parameter's purpose, but it does not add new semantic information beyond what the schema already explains.

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 verb 'List' and the resource 'report field names', which precisely defines the tool's function. It is distinct from sibling tools like 'build_ticket_dashboard' and 'run_ticket_report', which focus on dashboards and reports rather than listing field metadata.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. The mention of 'metadata-cached and compact' implies a lightweight use case, but this is not directly stated as a recommendation.

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