List Redmine Custom Fields

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description does not need to repeat that. It adds valuable behavioral context by explaining the fallback strategy: it tries the admin API first, then extracts fields from a recent issue if admin access is unavailable. This goes beyond the annotations and informs the agent about potential variation in results.

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 purpose appears in the first sentence, followed by the fallback behavior and return format. Every sentence earns its place; there is no redundant filler or restated tool name.

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 zero-parameter read-only tool with rich annotations, the description covers purpose, fallback behavior, and return shape. The only minor gap is that it does not mention what happens if neither the admin API nor a recent issue is available, but for typical use this is sufficient.

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 tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so there is no parameter documentation burden on the description. The description still clarifies what the returned table contains, which is useful given there is no output schema.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List custom fields available in Redmine.' It clearly differentiates this tool from siblings like redmine_list_issues or redmine_list_projects, and even previews the output content (ID, name, type info), leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 the tool is for retrieving custom field metadata from Redmine, and the context of Redmine-wide listing tools makes the intended use reasonably clear. However, it does not explicitly state when this tool should be preferred over alternatives or when it should not be used, so the guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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