get_custom_fields

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 only states that the tool retrieves custom fields, without clarifying whether it is read-only, whether authentication is required, what happens when both parameters are omitted, or the structure of the response. For a getter, this is a notable gap.

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, concise sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the primary action and object, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

The tool is simple with only two optional parameters and no output schema, so a brief description is acceptable. However, it does not specify the required relationship between parameters (e.g., whether at least one must be provided) or what the return payload represents (e.g., field definitions vs. values). These gaps make it only minimally viable.

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 100%, so the parameters are already documented. The description adds minimal value beyond restating that the custom fields are for a space or list, matching the parameter names. It does not clarify the relationship between space_id and list_id or whether at least one is required.

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 ('Get') and identifies the resource ('custom fields') with a clear scope ('for a ClickUp space or list'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like set_custom_field_value, which is a separate write operation.

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 usage when needing custom fields for a space or list, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it mention any preconditions or exclusion cases. It is clear enough for a straightforward getter, but lacks explicit context.

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