list_item_fields

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds the scoping nuance ('across all item types combined') but mostly repeats the read-only nature. It does not disclose additional behaviors like output shape or pagination, though the output schema exists.

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, no filler. The first sentence immediately describes the action and scope; the second provides essential distinction and a pointer to the alternative. Every word earns its place.

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 list tool with an output schema, the description is complete. It covers purpose, scope, exclusions, and references the most relevant sibling for a related use case.

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?

Tool has zero parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. Baseline for zero params is 4. The description adds no parameter information but none is needed; it focuses on the output scope.

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?

Description uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('every bibliographic field Zotero recognizes across all item types combined'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tool list_item_type_fields. It states exactly what the tool returns and which sibling it is not.

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?

Explicitly says when not to use this tool: 'not which fields are valid for one specific type', and points to the correct alternative (list_item_type_fields) and its relevance to create_item. This provides clear when/when-not guidance.

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