List board custom fields

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, which fully describe the tool's behavioral safety. The description adds minor context about response_format options but does not disclose significant behavioral details beyond what annotations already convey. No contradictions.

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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states the purpose clearly. It then breaks down parameters concisely and includes a helpful example. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 list tool, the description covers purpose, parameters, and example. While there is no output schema, the description mentions the two response formats (markdown and json), which provides adequate context. It is complete for typical use cases.

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 coverage is 100%, meaning the description repeats the schema verbatim. The description adds no new meaning beyond the schema for the 'board' parameter, and for 'response_format' it simply restates the enum and default. Baseline 3 is appropriate as schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'List board custom fields for a board.' It uses a specific verb (list) and resource (board custom fields), and the scope is well-defined. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like kanbanzone_list_board_labels or kanbanzone_list_board_columns.

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 includes an example query ('What custom fields does this board have?') which implies usage context, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other list tools) or provide conditions for not using it. The usage guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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