list_requisition_fields

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

The description discloses that hidden fields are excluded and that filtering is optional, which are behavioral traits. However, without annotations, more context like return format, pagination, or permission requirements would be beneficial. It adds some value beyond structured fields.

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 two sentences, front-loading the main action and then adding key nuance about hidden fields and filtering. Every sentence serves a purpose with no wasted words.

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 list tool with no output schema and two optional parameters, the description is fairly complete. It clarifies that hidden fields are excluded, which is important. It could mention if system fields are included, but overall adequate.

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?

Both parameters are fully described in the input schema (100% coverage). The description's mention of optional filtering adds no new meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline score 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 clearly states the verb 'list' and the resource 'field definitions for requisitions', specifying that it includes default and custom fields but excludes hidden fields. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_custom_fields which likely list all custom fields across entities.

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 implies when to use (when needing field definitions for requisitions) but does not explicitly contrast with siblings like list_custom_fields or other list tools. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided.

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