Get Board Custom Fields

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose useful behavior: the exact shape of the return (IDs, names, types, dropdown options) and the empty-list edge case for boards without fields. It omits auth/permission and any pagination or rate-limit notes, but the output behavior is well covered.

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?

Three short sentences, each front-loaded with a distinct fact (what it returns, extra dropdown detail, empty-list edge case). No filler or repetition.

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?

Since there is no output schema, the description appropriately explains the return structure and the empty-result case, making it sufficient to call and interpret the tool. Only minor gaps remain, such as permissions or whether results are affected by the board's active state.

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?

Only one parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents boardId and its default-if-omitted behavior. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that, matching the baseline 3 for a fully documented single-param schema.

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?

States a precise verb+resource ('Get all custom field definitions on a board') and explicitly enumerates the returned data (field IDs, names, types, options). It is clearly distinct from siblings like get_board_labels and update_card_custom_field, which deal with different resources or mutations.

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?

Usage is implied by the read-the-board's-definitions framing, and the note that no tool creates fields clarifies the read-only scope, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or named alternative for obtaining custom field data (e.g. versus update_card_custom_field). Nothing wrong, just not routed.

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