list_creator_fields

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description's 'Read-only' is redundant but not contradictory. It adds useful context about the tool's purpose and relationship to other tools, which goes beyond the annotations. No safety or side-effect disclosures are needed beyond what's covered.

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 sentences: first states the action and examples, second gives usage context and distinguishes from a sibling. Every word earns its place, and the description front-loads the core message without fluff.

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, read-only tool with an output schema, the description is complete. It explains what is listed, why you'd use it, and how it differs from a related tool. Nothing important is missing.

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 tool takes zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100% (empty schema). The description adds example field names for context, which is helpful but not strictly necessary. According to the rubric, 0 params with full schema coverage warrants a baseline 4.

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 explicitly names the resource ('name-shape fields Zotero recognizes on a `creators` entry') and gives concrete examples (firstName, lastName, name). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool list_item_creator_types, making its purpose unambiguous.

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?

States exactly when to use it: 'for building creators entries in create_item/update_item's `creators` argument'. It also names the alternative explicitly ('Distinct from list_item_creator_types') and clarifies what that tool does instead, providing both positive and negative guidance.

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