swsd_describe_custom_fields

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description need not restate safety. It adds useful read behavior beyond the schema: default returns active fields only, passing active_only:false includes retired fields, and filtering is recommended because the surface can be large. This gives the agent additional context about how the tool behaves at scale, though no auth or rate-limit details are provided.

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 long but every sentence carries useful information, including the v2 write note that prevents misuse. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and return fields, and the later details about writes and unsupported types are clearly scoped to a separate but related concern. Slightly longer than strictly necessary, but efficient for a config-relevant tool.

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 read-only list tool with five optional parameters, a full input schema, and an output schema present, the description provides everything an agent needs: what the schema returns, how to include retired fields, why and how to narrow results, and how it relates to sibling write tools. No important behavioral gap low-visible.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a little context by showing how to use active_only:false and why to filter by scope/module, but it does not introduce new parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already gives. The value is mostly reinforcement rather than additional semantics.

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 the specific verb and resource ('List the SWSD tenant's custom-field schema') and enumerates exactly what each field returns (id, name, type, required, scope, module, allowed values, help_text). This unmistakably identifies the tool's purpose among sibling tools, many of which operate on incidents or solutions.

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?

Usage is clearly contextualized: it is 'useful for understanding tenant configuration and documenting integrations', with guidance to filter by scope/module because tenants may have 100+ fields. The v2 note also directs agents to the alternative tools for writes (swsd_create_incident, swsd_update_incident, etc.), so the agent knows this tool is for reading schema rather than writing custom fields.

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