fields_list_all_fields

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It mentions caching for 15 minutes and describes the return structure in detail. However, it doesn't explicitly state it's read-only or address any potential side effects, though the context implies it's a safe read operation.

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 well-structured with a clear purpose, return format, caching note, and use cases. It is detailed but concise, with every sentence adding value.

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 no output schema, the description fully explains the return structure and caching behavior. It covers all necessary aspects for a retrieval tool, making it complete for an agent to understand what to expect.

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?

There are no parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description doesn't need to add parameter information. The baseline of 4 is appropriate as no additional parameter context is required.

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 it retrieves all field definitions across all entity types, serving as an aggregator. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like fields_list_deal_fields by explicitly mentioning it combines multiple entity types in one call.

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 lists common use cases such as getting a complete overview, building documentation, and auditing. While it doesn't explicitly say when not to use it, the aggregator nature implies it's for cross-entity needs, and specific entity tools exist for targeted queries.

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