rm_list_custom_field_values

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

With readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, the annotations already establish this is a safe read operation. The description adds the scoping trait that results are tied to 'a specific entity,' which clarifies the operation is not a global list. However, it does not disclose further behavioral context such as pagination, ordering, or handling of entities without custom field values, so the additional transparency is modest.

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 one short sentence with no fluff or redundacy, embodying the conciseness ideal. It front-loades the verb and resource. However, the sentence is so sparse that it sacrifices valuable content for brevity, so it does not earn a 5.

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?

Given the tool has only two parameters but both are undocumented, and the toolbox contains several custom-field-related siblings that could be confused, the description is insufficiently complete for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. The presence of an output schema helps with return values but does nothing for input semantics. The agent would need to guess acceptable target_type values or resolve ambiguity through trial and error.

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 has no descriptions for target_id or target_type, and the description itself gives no parameter semantics beyond the vague phrase 'entity.' It does not explain what target_type values are acceptable (e.g., 'user,' 'project,' 'time_entry'), how target_id relates to target_type, or whether either parameter is effectively required. Since schema coverage is 0%, the description bears the full burden, and it fails to meet it.

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 states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('custom field values'), with an explicit scoping prepositional phrase ('for a specific entity'). This distinguishes it from sibling rm_list_custom_fields, which lists field definitions rather than values, and from rm_set_custom_field_values, which writes. However, it does not explicitly name or disambiguate against these siblings, so it falls short of a perfect 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool instead of the many sibling tools such as rm_list_custom_fields, rm_get_custom_field, or rm_set_custom_field_values. It also omits prerequisites like which target_type values are valid or whether target_id is required. The only implication is that one should call it when interested in values attached to a specific entity, which is not explicit enough.

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