acc_list_custom_attributes

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

With readOnlyHint=true indicating a safe read operation, the description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it explains the difference in output between folder-level and project-level views, including the namingStandardIds binding. It doesn't mention pagination or output format, but the output schema covers returns, and no destructive behavior is implied.

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 compact yet information-dense, using three sentences to convey the core operation, the two modes, and the additional naming-standard binding detail. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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?

Given the two-parameter schema, readOnlyHint annotation, and output schema presence, the description is fully complete. It explains the critical distinction between folder and project views, and since an output schema exists, detailed return values are unnecessary in the description.

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?

While the schema already includes descriptions for both parameters, the description adds deeper semantic meaning by explaining how the presence or absence of folder_id changes the scope and data returned. This goes beyond the schema's 'Folder URN' and 'Project id' by clarifying the behavioral impact.

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 tool lists custom attribute definitions and specifies the key attributes returned (id, name, type, allowed values). It distinguishes between the folder-level and project-level variants, making it distinct from sibling tools like acc_create_custom_attribute and acc_set_custom_attributes.

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 provides clear context on when to use each mode: with folder_id for folder-level views (BIM 360 + ACC), without for the ACC project-level registry. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the guidance on parameter choice is clear.

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