asana_get_custom_field_settings

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering safety. The description adds that data is 'live' and lists the GID types returned, which is useful behavioral context about the output, though it doesn't disclose other traits like pagination behavior or rate limits. This is adequate given the annotation coverage.

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 with zero filler. The first sentence states the action and output; the second provides the usage rationale. Every word earns its place, and the key information is front-loaded.

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 simple read-only fetcher with a well-described schema, the description communicates the purpose, output content, and a motivating use case. It omits details like response shape or edge cases, but the schema covers parameters and annotations cover safety, making it sufficiently complete for invocation.

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 100% description coverage—each parameter (limit, max_pages, opt_fields, project_gid) is described. The description itself adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 the specific verb 'Fetch' with the resource 'a project's custom field settings' and specifies the returned content: live field GIDs, types, and enum option GIDs. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like asana_get_custom_field (single field) and asana_list_workspace_custom_fields (workspace-level).

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 explicitly advises using this tool to 'derive field/option GIDs live instead of trusting hand-coded maps that drift', giving a clear use case and rationale. It does not name sibling alternatives or list when not to use it, but the context is strong enough for an agent to choose this tool for live project-specific data.

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