tomticket_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 behavioral disclosure burden. It explicitly states 'Nao altera dados' (does not alter data), which signals a read-only operation, and 'Lista todos' indicates the full scope of results. This is meaningful safety and scope context, though it does not address pagination or response shape.

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 short sentences: the first states the action and scope, the second states the non-destructive nature. Every word earns its place and the key 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, no-output-schema list tool, the description is largely sufficient: it names the resource, scope, and read-only behavior. It could mention whether the response is paged or the exact return format, but these are minor gaps given the tool's simplicity.

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 zero parameters (100% coverage trivially). With no parameters to document, the baseline is 4; the description appropriately confirms the tool takes no filters and lists everything for the account.

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+tresource: 'Lista todos os campos personalizados da conta' (lists all custom fields of the account). The 'da conta' scope clearly distinguishes this from the sibling tools that list entity-specific custom fields (ticket, customer, organization, department).

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: if you need all account-level custom fields, use this tool. It implicitly contrasts with the sibling tools that target specific entity custom fields, but it does not explicitly state when_not to use it or name alternatives, so guidance is only implied rather than explicit.

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