allure_list_custom_fields

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the description adds value by detailing the returned fields and the negative/positive id distinction for built-in vs. custom fields.

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 concise with four sentences, each serving a purpose: stating the action, listing return fields, giving usage guidance, and providing extra id context. It is front-loaded and efficient.

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 one parameter, clear annotations, and an output schema (implied), the description is complete. It explains what the tool returns, when to use it, and references a related sibling tool, leaving no gaps.

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 coverage is 100% with a clear description for 'project_id'. The description does not add further parameter-level semantics but provides useful context about the tool's output, resulting in a baseline score of 3.

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 'List' and the resource 'custom fields defined on a project', and differentiates from sibling tools by referencing 'allure_get_test_case_custom_fields' as a subsequent step. It also explains the output specifics (field_id, name, single_select, required) and the id sign convention.

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 explicitly recommends using this tool 'before reading a test case's values with allure_get_test_case_custom_fields', providing clear context. While it does not mention when not to use it, the recommendation is strong and helps the agent decide.

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