get_workspace_custom_fields

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It reveals that the tool returns ids, names, types, and configuration of custom fields, which is adequate. However, it omits potential details like pagination, authentication requirements, or whether the list includes all fields (e.g., active/inactive).

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 extremely concise—two sentences that efficiently convey the purpose and usage. Every sentence adds value, with no superfluous information. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the core function.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (single optional parameter, no output schema), the description provides sufficient context. It states what fields are returned and hints at usage. While it could mention if the list is static or dynamic, the current level is adequate for an agent to decide and 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?

The input schema covers 100% of parameters, including a description for team_id that matches the tool's description. The tool description does not add new meaning beyond the schema; it only repeats the 'team_id' reference. Therefore, the parameter semantics are adequately handled by the schema, resulting in a baseline score of 3.

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 tool's action ('List') and resource ('custom fields accessible at the Workspace/Team level'), specifying the returned fields. It distinguishes from siblings like get_folder_custom_fields or get_space_custom_fields by emphasizing the workspace scope.

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 includes the guidance 'Use to discover org-wide fields,' which provides clear context for when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or contrast with specific sibling tools, but the usage intent is well communicated.

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