cigchat_team_ticket_lists_fields

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It names the required OAuth scope, which is a key behavioral constraint. It does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, but the 'Get' verb conveys this. It stops short of describing response format or error behavior, but for a simple GET, the disclosed auth requirement adds meaningful 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, compact sentence that conveys the operation, endpoint, and required scope. Every word is necessary; there is no redundancy or filler. It is appropriately front-loaded with the main action.

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 simplicity of the tool (one required parameter, no output schema), the description covers the essential elements: purpose, endpoint, and authentication. It does not detail the response structure, but for a list-fetching operation, the high-level description is adequate. A slightly richer description of what constitutes a 'field' could push it to 5, but the current level is sufficient.

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 has 100% coverage for the single parameter 'listId', including a description. The tool description adds no additional information about the parameter beyond what the schema already provides. Per the baseline rule for high schema coverage, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Get list of ticket list fields') and includes the exact endpoint path, making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'cigchat_team_ticket_lists' and 'cigchat_team_ticket_lists_items' by specifying it retrieves fields for a specific list.

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 a clear prerequisite ('Requires the Manage Team scope on the token'), which is a useful usage condition. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the endpoint context implies when to use it (when you have a listId and need its fields). Thus it has clear context but no explicit 'when not to use' guidance.

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