Custom Fields List

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful context beyond those: required OAuth scopes per entity, API version, and the return shape (count, page, per_page, has_more, next_page, items). It does not explain pagination behavior or rate limits, but given the annotation coverage this is a solid addition.

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 front-loads the purpose and then adds scopes, version, and return shape in a compact block. Some lines (HTTP endpoint, API version) are technical metadata that may not help an agent decide how to call it, but overall it is efficient and well-structured.

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 rich schema and annotations, the description covers purpose, auth scopes, and return shape. The main gap is sibling disambiguation—it never explains how this differs from tiendanube_custom_field_defs_list or tiendanube_custom_fields_get_by_entity_id—so an agent may still hesitate. This is adequate but incomplete context.

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 all five parameters—including enums for entity and response_format—are fully documented in the schema. The description only implicitly references the entity parameter and adds no extra meaning for fields, page, per_page, or response_format. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the parameter semantics.

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 and resource: 'List custom field definitions of an entity.' However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like tiendanube_custom_field_defs_list, which sounds nearly identical, so an agent may not know which one to choose.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as tiendanube_custom_field_defs_list or tiendanube_custom_fields_get_by_entity_id. The required scopes are helpful for authentication but do not explain selection criteria.

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