items_field_values

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly signals a read-only listing operation and mentions 'distinct values,' but adds no context about authentication, error behavior, pagination, or what happens when the field does not exist.

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, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It states the action, the resource, and the key parameter concept efficiently.

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 one-parameter tool, the description is close to adequate: it communicates the purpose and parameter meaning. However, there is no output schema and no annotation coverage, and the description does not clarify the items context, result format, or behavior for a missing field.

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 only defines 'field' as a string with no description, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description adds the key meaning that the parameter is a custom field name, which is helpful, but it does not explain requiredness, accepted formats, or behavior when omitted.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and identifies a clear resource: distinct values for a given custom field name. It is reasonably distinguishable from siblings like items_fields, though it does not explicitly name or contrast any sibling.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as items_fields or items_list. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or context to help an agent choose among the sibling tools.

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