get_device_custom_fields

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

No annotations provided, and the description discloses the return content but does not mention side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or edge cases. For a read-only tool, basic transparency is achieved but lacks behavioral details beyond what's obvious.

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?

Single sentence that packs the purpose and return content efficiently. No filler, front-loaded with the core action.

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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does and what it returns. No additional context is necessary given the simplicity.

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 the schema coverage is 100%. The description does not need to add parameter info. Baseline 4 is appropriate as the description adds no misleading or missing parameter details.

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 'get' and the resource 'custom fields configured for an organization's devices', and specifies the return content (field definitions, types, configurations). It distinguishes from sibling tools like create/delete/update and identity counterparts.

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 usage for reading all device custom fields, but does not explicitly provide when-to-use vs alternatives (e.g., get_identity_custom_fields) or when not to use. No exclusions or context cues beyond the resource scope.

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