get_custom_field_values

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint) already indicate a safe read operation. The description adds value by stating the return content: 'all custom field values found on the document with their labels and types'. No contradictions with 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?

Two sentences contain all necessary information: verb, resource, parameter sources, return content. No extraneous words.

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 presence of an output schema, the description adequately explains the return. Parameters are fully covered in schema and description. Annotations cover behavior. No gaps remain for the agent.

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 provides 100% coverage with basic descriptions. The description adds context by advising to get parameters from list_cards, list_issues, etc., which adds meaningful usage guidance beyond schema text.

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 verb 'Read' and the resource 'custom field values from a document'. It specifies how to obtain the required parameters (ID and class from list_cards, etc.) and distinguishes from siblings like list_custom_fields which lists definitions, not values.

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 context on when to use the tool: to read custom field values from a document, and hints at source of parameters. It does not explicitly list when not to use or compare with alternatives, but the purpose is clear and siblings like set_custom_field are implied as different operations.

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