teamleader_list_custom_field_definitions

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation by using 'List' and mentions the output content (IDs and configuration), but it does not explicitly state that it is read-only, nor does it describe pagination behavior or any potential side effects. The description is adequate for a listing tool but lacks explicit safety declarations.

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 two sentences, with the primary purpose front-loaded. It avoids redundancy and every phrase adds value: 'List custom field definitions', then the use case, then the content and context filter. There is no fluff or unnecessary detail.

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?

Since there is no output schema, the description compensates by indicating what the tool returns (custom field IDs and configuration, including select field options). It also covers the context filter and mentions the variety of contexts. It does not explicitly discuss pagination, but the page and page_size parameters imply that. For a list operation with no annotations, this is reasonably complete.

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 three parameters are already documented. The description adds context about the 'context' parameter by listing the possible values and mentioning 'per context', which mirrors the schema's enum. It does not introduce new meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 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 verb 'List' and the resource 'custom field definitions', and elaborates on the purpose: discovering custom field IDs and their configuration, including select field options, per context. It also enumerates the contexts, which distinguishes it from all sibling tools since none other deals with custom field definitions.

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 explicitly says 'Use to discover custom field IDs and their configuration', providing clear when-to-use guidance. It does not mention alternatives, but no sibling tool offers similar functionality, so this is not a gap. It could be more explicit about when not to use it, but the purpose is sufficiently defined.

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