list_fields

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. The verb 'List' implies a non-mutating read operation, which is useful, but the description does not state whether there are any side effects, authentication requirements, pagination behavior, or output conventions. This is adequate but not deeply transparent.

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 with no filler. The key verb-object pair is front-loaded, and every word contributes meaning.

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 low complexity—one required enum parameter, no nested objects, no output schema—the description is nearly complete: it states what the tool returns and what input is required. It could mention the return format or sibling alternatives, but those are minor gaps for such a simple 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%: the single required 'system' parameter has an enum and a description ('The ranking system to list fields for'). The tool description adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond restating the scope, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 is specific: it names the verb 'List' and the resource 'available fields/disciplines' scoped to 'a specific ranking system'. This clearly differentiates it from siblings like generate_scopus_query and list_grades, which target different actions or resources.

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 instead of list_grades or generate_scopus_query. The only contextual hint is that it is scoped to a ranking system, but there is no explicit when-to-use or exclusionary language.

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