List Custom Field Values

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the behavioral safety profile is clear. The description adds no further behavioral context (e.g., pagination behavior, permissions, or rate limits), but does not contradict the annotations.

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 concise sentence, front-loaded with the verb 'List'. It is efficient, though it could benefit from additional detail given the tool's complexity without becoming verbose.

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 10 optional parameters (pagination, filtering, sorting, multiple IDs), the description is too sparse. It does not mention key features like search, pagination, or output format. With no output schema, more guidance on return values is needed.

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?

All 10 parameters have descriptions in the input schema (100% coverage), so the schema itself documents parameter purpose. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, thus meeting the baseline expectation.

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 action ('List') and resource ('available values for a custom field'), making the core purpose understandable. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like list_test_cases or get_custom_fields, lacking specification of scope or filtering capabilities.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search_test_cases, list_custom_fields, or other list tools. The description does not mention prerequisites, recommended contexts, or exclusions.

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