List custom field metadata for a computer

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by enumerating the returned metadata fields and clarifying that it is linked to a specific computer. However, it does not disclose potential pitfalls like pagination, authorization, or error behavior, so the added value beyond annotations is moderate.

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 long, front-loaded with the primary function, and every clause adds value. It includes concrete examples (COL301) and a clear downstream application without any filler. This is a model of concise, informative tool documentation.

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 read-only metadata retrieval tool with one parameter and full schema coverage, the description is nearly complete. It explains what data will be returned and why the tool matters for downstream operations. The absence of an output schema is mitigated by the explicit list of fields. It lacks only minor details like error conditions or pagination, which are less critical given the tool's narrow, read-only scope.

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 schema provides 100% coverage for the single parameter resourceId, including a description that it is the numeric resource_id from som_computers_list. The tool description does not add further parameter-specific details beyond referring to a 'specific computer', so the schema carries the heavy lifting. 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 uses the specific verb 'Retrieves' and identifies the exact resource: 'custom field metadata linked to a specific computer'. It lists the key data fields (display name, actual column name, data type, etc.), making the tool's function unmistakable. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explaining its role in discovering actualColumnName for modify/remove tools.

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 states when to use the tool: 'Use this to discover the actualColumnName needed by the custom column modify/remove tools.' This provides clear context for the tool's primary purpose. It does not mention alternatives or exclusions, but the explicit use case is strong enough for a 4.

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