Get All Custom Fields

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond annotations: it explicitly says 'Read-only — it changes nothing in Procore,' details error payload behavior with common HTTP statuses (401, 403, 404), explains pagination ('response reports how many pages remain'), and notes the default company_id from procore_set_config. This exceeds the baseline set by annotations.

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 longer than two sentences but each sentence earns its place: purpose, usage, parameter defaults, pagination, read-only nature, error behavior, and API reference. It is front-loaded with the main action and structured logically, though slightly dense.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description covers return type ('JSON array of custom fields'), pagination behavior, error payloads, and the exact endpoint. Given the tool's simple list nature and strong annotations, the description is fully sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly without needing further context.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful value beyond the schema: it reveals that company_id defaults to procore_set_config when omitted, and clarifies that pagination responses indicate remaining pages. These details are not in the parameter descriptions, elevating the score.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource+scope: 'Retrieves all Custom Fields within the specified company.' It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools by emphasizing 'all' and the lookup use case ('look up the id of one before calling a tool that needs it'), which separates it from get_single_custom_field and similar 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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'Use this to discover custom fields or to look up the id of one before calling a tool that needs it.' This gives concrete context, though it doesn't name alternative tools or list exclusions. The guidance is clear enough for an agent to decide when this tool fits.

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