Docflow List Category Fields

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly signals a read-only operation with 'List' and 'GET', and it transparently describes the return contents: field_id, name, description, and configuration. It does not mention pagination or permissions, but for a list operation the behavioral profile is largely clear.

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?

Three sentences with no filler: action, return summary, and usage guidance. The most important information is front-loaded, and every sentence 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?

Given the tool's simplicity, two parameters, and the presence of an output schema, the description is largely complete. It provides the endpoint, return fields, and a practical use case. The main missing piece is workspace_id semantics, but that is already captured under parameter semantics.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does little to explain the two required parameters. While category_id is implied by 'in a category', workspace_id is not described at all, and no format, source, or relationship guidance is given. The description should compensate for the bare schema but does not.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'List all fields configured in a category.' It also distinguishes this from siblings like docflow_list_categories and docflow_list_category_tables by naming the exact resource type and including the endpoint. An agent can immediately tell what this tool does and what it is not for.

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 provides a concrete use case: 'Use this to get field_ids needed when building review rules with referenced_fields.' This gives clear context for when to invoke the tool, though it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives beyond the implied sibling set.

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