asana_list_workspace_custom_fields

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive. The description adds value by explicitly noting 'Paginated' and the 'ALL' scope, which explains that the tool returns the full set across pages. This is useful behavioral context beyond 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 one tight sentence with a parenthetical purpose, followed by a single-word sentence 'Paginated.' It is front-loaded with the action and resource, every phrase serves a purpose, and no words are wasted.

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 that annotations cover the safety profile and the schema covers parameters, the description is complete enough for the core call. It includes pagination behavior and the use case. A minor gap is that it does not clarify how workspace is chosen when no workspace parameter is provided, but this may be inherited from context.

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 already documents limit, max_pages, and opt_fields with descriptions (75% coverage). The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, and the workspace parameter has no schema description nor any clarification from the description. Baseline is 3 given partial coverage; the missing workspace context keeps it at a 3.

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 states a precise verb and resource: 'List ALL custom fields defined in the workspace'. The parenthetical 'design discovery — find a field GID to attach to a board' clarifies the intended use. It inherently differentiates from singular get_custom_field or per-project get_custom_field_settings.

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 given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only names a use case (design discovery) but does not mention when not to use it or which sibling would be more appropriate (e.g., get_custom_field for a single field, get_custom_field_settings for project settings).

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