pylon_list_custom_fields

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not explicitly state the operation is read-only, nor does it disclose pagination behavior despite the cursor parameter. No mention of permissions, rate limits, or return format.

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, front-loaded with the action and resource, and contains no redundant words. It is effectively concise given the tool's simplicity.

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?

The description covers the basic purpose but omits pagination behavior (despite a cursor parameter) and any return format details. With no output schema, this is a gap, but the tool has only 2 parameters and is relatively simple, so the description is minimally adequate with room for improvement.

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% description coverage for both parameters (cursor as 'Pagination cursor' and object_type with enum values). The description repeats 'specific object type' but adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 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 (List), the resource (custom fields), and the scope (for a specific object type). It distinguishes from sibling tools like pylon_get_custom_field (single field) and pylon_create_custom_field/update_custom_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 implies usage for retrieving all custom fields for a given object type, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like pylon_get_custom_field or pylon_list_accounts. No exclusions or alternative conditions are mentioned.

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