teamleader_custom_field_definitions_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'List custom field definitions' and gives no information about pagination behavior, return structure, or potential side effects. This is essentially just restating the tool name without adding behavioral context.

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 unnecessary words. Structure is clean and front-loaded. However, it is under-specified in terms of content, which prevents a perfect score—though conciseness itself is not the issue.

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 has no output schema, no annotations, and a minimal description. For a list operation, the description does not mention what fields are returned, whether pagination is required, or how to use it in conjunction with the info tool. This is insufficient for an agent to understand the full context of the operation.

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 50%, with only 'page_size' having a description ('max 100'). The tool description adds no parameter semantics whatsoever. The agent must rely on the schema alone, which documents the parameters but not their intended usage or defaults. The description should have explained pagination semantics but does not.

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 'List custom field definitions' clearly states the verb (list) and resource (custom field definitions). However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'teamleader_custom_field_definitions_info', which presumably fetches a single definition. The plural 'definitions' hints at list-all behavior, but explicit distinction is absent.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of pagination usage, when to call this instead of the info tool, or any prerequisites. The description provides no context about typical use cases.

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