List IT Glue Flexible Asset Fields

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

Annotations already provide strong behavioral hints (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true), so the bar is lower. The description adds useful context about the tool's purpose in understanding fields for creation/update operations, but it doesn't disclose additional behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, or pagination behavior. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. The second sentence adds practical utility context, and the 'Args' and 'Returns' sections are clear and efficient. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant 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?

Given the tool's low complexity (2 parameters, 100% schema coverage, no output schema), the description is mostly complete. It explains the purpose, usage context, parameters, and return value. However, it could be slightly more complete by mentioning the lack of pagination or filtering options, or providing a brief example of the output structure since there's no output schema.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents both parameters (flexible_asset_type_id and response_format). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning the parameters in the 'Args' section and clarifying the return format options, but it doesn't provide additional semantic context like examples or edge cases. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specific action ('List all fields') and resource ('for a specific flexible asset type'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'itglue_list_flexible_asset_types' (which lists types, not fields) and 'itglue_get_flexible_asset' (which retrieves asset instances). The second sentence further clarifies the purpose by explaining its utility for understanding traits when creating/updating assets.

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 for when to use this tool ('to understand what traits are available when creating or updating flexible assets'), but it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives. For example, it doesn't contrast with 'itglue_get_flexible_asset_type' which might provide related metadata.

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