rm_list_custom_fields

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description itself adds no behavioral context beyond restating the action, but it does not contradict 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 a single, clear sentence with no filler or redundant detail. It is appropriately sized for a zero-parameter list operation, though it adds little beyond the tool name.

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 zero-parameter input, the presence of an output schema, and annotations covering read-only safety, the description is complete enough for a simple list operation. It could be slightly stronger by explicitly noting that it returns definitions rather than values, but the resource name already conveys this.

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 tool accepts zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. The baseline of 4 applies because the description and schema are fully aligned and nothing is left undocumented.

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 a specific verb ('List') and a specific resource ('custom field definitions'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like rm_list_custom_field_values and rm_get_custom_field. The word 'definitions' signals metadata rather than values, making 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?

Usage is implied: this is the tool to call when you need custom field definitions. However, it does not explicitly contrast with rm_list_custom_field_values or rm_get_custom_field, so an agent must infer which sibling is the right alternative.

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