list_field_reference

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

No annotations provided, but the description discloses the output is organized by category with optional filtering, and that fields are writable. Does not detail return structure beyond categories, but adequate for a listing tool.

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?

Five sentences, front-loaded with purpose and local context. No wasted words; every sentence adds information (local hint, sibling reference, parameter details, categories list).

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 no output schema, the description explains the return is categorized and lists all categories. Parameter is fully documented. Ties into sibling write tools, making it self-contained for the agent.

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 description adds significant value over the schema by listing all valid category values (e.g., core_identity, dates), which the schema does not provide. Schema coverage is 100%, but description enriches usage clarity.

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 available writable project fields for write operations, distinguishing from read-side attribute discovery via sibling tool reference.

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?

Explicitly says to use this for discovering field IDs for write operations (update_project, create_project) and directs read-side usage to Beta MCP's searchAttributes instead.

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