list_fields

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

With no annotations, this description carries the behavioral burden and does substantial work: it discloses the document regions scanned, the attributes returned, coverage of complex and simple fields, and flagging of unclosed fields. It stops short of explicitly stating the operation is read-only, though 'current cached result text' strongly 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 compact and front-loaded with the tool's purpose in the first clause. The colon-separated attribute list and final completeness statement carry dense, relevant information without wasted words.

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?

The description covers the full field enumeration scope, field types, cached result text, location information, and edge-case handling, while the output schema can cover return formatting. A brief explicit read-only statement would make it fully complete, but it is already sufficient for correct invocation.

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 0% and the description adds no meaning to the file_path parameter. The parameter is a simple, conventional path, so this is not a severe gap, but the description does not compensate for the schema's lack of any property description.

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 immediately states the exact scope — every field in body, headers, footers, footnotes, and endnotes — and enumerates the returned attributes. This makes it clearly distinct from field-related siblings like insert_field and com_refresh_fields.

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 a listing/inspection use case by specifying coverage and the fact that unclosed fields are flagged, but it never explicitly says when to choose this over alternatives or when not to use it. Context is present, but exclusions and alternatives are absent.

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