list_custom_fields

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return value structure (ID, name, label, type, validation, options), which adds behavioral context beyond the schema. However, it does not explicitly state that it is a read-only operation or mention any potential side effects, though 'list' implies no mutation.

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, front-loaded with the main purpose, and every sentence adds value. The return format is efficiently summarized without unnecessary detail.

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 zero-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers what is returned and the scope. It could mention sorting or pagination, but these are not critical for a basic list of custom fields and are not required by the tool's 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, so the schema defines nothing. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description does not need to explain parameters. The description adds no parameter info, but none is needed.

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'), the specific resource ('registered global custom fields'), and the scope ('in the organization'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_pipelines or list_vendors. It unambiguously identifies what is returned.

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 usage is implied by the 'list' verb and the resource, but the description does not explicitly mention when to use this tool instead of alternatives (e.g., create_custom_field, update_custom_field) or any prerequisites. No exclusions or alternative tool guidance is provided.

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