cigchat_flow_user_fields

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the required auth scope, which is useful, but does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, nor does it describe pagination behavior, sorting, or what the response contains. The GET verb implies read-only, but more detail would improve transparency.

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 sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the action and resource, then includes the endpoint and auth requirement. Extremely concise and structurally clear.

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?

For a simple list operation with 3 optional params and no output schema, the description is mostly complete: it gives purpose, endpoint, and auth scope. It does not mention response format or any pagination details, but the simplicity of the tool and clear schema compensate. Slight gap compared to the best examples.

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 input schema covers all 100% of parameters with descriptions (name, page, limit). The tool description itself adds no parameter information, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate given the schema already provides meaning.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('list of user fields'), with context 'by flow' and the API endpoint. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like flow_bot_fields and flow_create_user_field.

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 states a required OAuth scope ('Manage Flow'), which is a prerequisite, but does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to list user fields vs. bot fields). Usage is implied by the title and description.

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