list_fields

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

No annotations provided, so description carries the burden. It states the tool 'lists' fields, implying a read-only operation with no side effects. However, it does not clarify behavior like caching, pagination, or what 'available' means exactly (e.g., include hidden fields?). The description is minimally adequate but lacks depth.

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 a single sentence that is concise and front-loaded with the key action. Every word earns its place. No wasted text.

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 parameters, presence of output schema, and low complexity, the description is nearly complete. It identifies the resource and scope. It could optionally mention that the output includes field names and types, but the output schema presumably covers that. Slight lack of detail on what 'available' means, but adequate for a zero-parameter tool.

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 has zero parameters, so the description does not need to add parameter details. The description correctly implies no configuration is needed. With 100% schema coverage (trivially), a baseline of 3 applies, but the description adds value by specifying the source ('current workbook datasource').

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 lists all available fields in the current workbook datasource. It specifies the resource ('fields') and scope ('current workbook datasource'). While it distinguishes from sibling tools like 'add_calculated_field' and 'remove_calculated_field', it does not explicitly differentiate from potential field-related 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 implies usage before other actions that require knowledge of available fields (e.g., adding calculated fields). However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions.

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