list_custom_field_definitions

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds valuable behavioral context: it returns all 15 definitions regardless of enabled state, and explains that enabled=False slots are dormant in the UI. There is no contradiction with 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 adequately concise with about 5 sentences, each adding value. It is front-loaded with the main purpose. However, it could be slightly tighter by integrating the parameter guidance into the first paragraph.

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 tool has an output schema (not shown), the description provides enough context for the return format (15 definitions in slot order, fields like labels, types, enabled state) and hints at usage in a broader workflow. It is complete for its purpose.

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 input schema has one required parameter 'board_id' (integer, min 1) but no description in the schema. The tool description does not explicitly mention or explain the 'board_id' parameter beyond a vague 'once per board'. With 0% schema coverage, the description fails to compensate by clarifying the parameter's meaning or constraints.

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 it lists per-board metadata for 15 custom-field slots. It specifies the verb 'list' and the resource 'custom-field definitions', and distinguishes from siblings by detailing what is returned (labels, types, enabled state) and the slot numbering.

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 explains when to use this tool: 'once per board to learn the labels, types, and enabled state, then interpret task values accordingly.' However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, though the context makes it clear this is a unique tool for metadata retrieval.

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