List Ticket Custom Field Values

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

The annotations already declare this a read-only operation, and the description adds valuable detail beyond that: the response envelope ({data: [...]}), the exact structure of each item (field, prediction, value), and the behavioral note that field.id serves as the identifier for subsequent mutation operations. This is meaningful context not present in the 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the endpoint and action, followed by the response shape and a usage hint. Every clause earns its place: endpoint, purpose, return format, item structure, and actionable guidance. No wasted words or repetition of schema information.

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 simple read-only list operation with a single parameter and no output schema, the description is unusually thorough: it gives the endpoint, the response structure, the item attribute names, and how to use the returned IDs for mutations. It lacks only details like pagination or error handling, which are not critical for this simple endpoint. The presence of sibling tools is handled by the clear scoping to ticket custom field values.

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 fully describes ticket_id with a clear description, and the schema coverage is 100%. The tool description does not add any extra parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema already provides. It does explain the return structure in the context of the item, but not the parameter itself, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool lists all custom field values for a specific ticket using the GET endpoint. It distinguishes itself from siblings like gorgias_list_custom_fields (which lists field definitions) and gorgias_list_customer_field_values (which handles customer, not ticket, fields). The verb 'list' plus the resource 'ticket custom field values' makes the purpose unambiguous.

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 provides clear context: use when you need custom field values assigned to a specific ticket. It also gives follow-up guidance, noting that field.id is used for update/delete operations. However, it does not explicitly compare with alternative sibling tools or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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