kaiten_list_custom_properties

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool lists properties and shows valid types, but it does not disclose pagination behavior, default filtering (e.g., active and inactive), response format, or whether any side effects occur. For a read-only list tool this is a meaningful gap, though the absence of mutation language weakly implies a safe read operation.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The primary action is stated first, and the supporting type list follows. Every sentence contributes useful information, and the structure is immediately scannable for an agent.

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 list endpoint with 10 optional parameters, 100% schema coverage, and no annotations, the description is minimally adequate but leaves several gaps. It does not describe the return payload, default pagination, or default condition behavior, and it does not help an agent choose between this and sibling custom-property tools. The type enumeration adds useful domain context, but the overall definition is not complete enough for an agent acting without additional documentation.

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 documents all 10 parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by enumerating the exact valid type names ('string, number, date, email, checkbox, select, formula, url, collective_score, vote, collective_vote, catalog, phone, user, attachment'), which directly informs the `types` filter parameter and is information not present in the schema. It does not add meaning for the other nine parameters, but the schema handles those adequately.

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 and resource: 'List company custom properties.' It also enumerates the supported property types, which further clarifies what kind of entities this tool returns. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the related kaiten_get_custom_property or kaiten_list_select_values tools, so it misses the explicit sibling differentiation needed for a 5.

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?

There is no guidance about when to choose this tool instead of related ones such as kaiten_get_custom_property, kaiten_create_custom_property, or kaiten_list_select_values. The list semantics are implied by the name, but the description does not state any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, so an agent receives no direct routing help.

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