List data fields

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds concrete behavioral detail: 'Returns 50 at a time with offset pagination,' which tells the agent how results are delivered and how to iterate. This is useful context beyond what annotations provide.

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 with no filler. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the pagination behavior is stated in a compact second sentence. Every word earns its place.

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 paginated list tool with fully documented parameters, a rich output schema, and read-only/idempotent annotations, the description is complete. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly and understand the result shape.

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%, with both limit and offset fully documented including defaults and ranges. The description's pagination mention aligns with the schema but does not add new semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so a 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 states a specific action ('List') and a precise resource ('reusable form fields shared across routing forms'), which distinguishes it clearly from sibling tools like list_routing_forms and create_data_field. The additional note about fields matching a planned addition reinforces its purpose without ambiguity.

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 clear context by indicating this is used to discover existing reusable fields, including ones that may match a planned addition. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context strongly implies the intended workflow alongside create_data_field.

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