clio_list_custom_fields

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It adds context about the output (field IDs and value formats) and implies a read-only listing operation. However, it does not mention pagination limits, response structure, or any potential side effects, leaving significant behavioral details undisclosed.

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 with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the verb and resource, and every word contributes meaning. It is concise and well-structured.

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 only 2 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description conveys the core purpose and indicates the type of returned data (field IDs and value formats). However, it omits any mention of the limit parameter's behavior or pagination, making it adequate but not fully complete for a self-contained tool description.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains 'parent type' implicitly (matching the parent_type parameter) but does not mention the 'limit' parameter at all. The schema provides min/max/default for limit, but the description adds no extra meaning for that parameter, resulting in incomplete parameter explanation.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') with a clear resource ('custom field definitions for a parent type') and explains the intended outcome ('so you know the field ids and value formats'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like clio_set_custom_field_values and other list tools.

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 implies the use case—when you need field IDs and value formats—but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or a direct pointer to related tools (e.g., 'use before setting custom fields'). The guidance is reasonable but not explicit.

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