Get case fields

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose a key structural/behavioral trait: custom case values are stored under a nested 'customFields' map and must be passed the same way on create/update. However, it does not explicitly state read-only semantics, absence of side effects, or any limits/pagination, so transparency is adequate but incomplete.

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 with no filler. The first sentence states the purpose and return shape; the second adds the critical customFields usage note. Every sentence earns its place, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 zero-parameter getter with no output schema, the description is largely complete: it names the returned sections and explains the important customFields convention. It could define 'baseFields' more explicitly, but the overall complexity is low and the agent has enough to invoke the tool correctly.

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?

There are zero parameters, so there is no parameter ambiguity. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description adds context about the return structure without needing to explain parameters.

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 states a clear verb-resource pair ('Get case ... field definitions') and the exact output shape ('{ baseFields, customFields }'). Adding the Hebrew term 'פנייה' removes ambiguity. It is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like get_lead_fields and get_contact_fields because it explicitly targets cases.

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 retrieve case field definitions before creating or updating a case, especially because custom values must be passed inside a nested 'customFields' map. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the context is strong enough for an agent to know this is the case-specific field lookup.

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