get_custom_fields

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits on its own. It only states that a list is returned; it does not mention whether projectId or projectKey (or both) is required, how they interact (e.g., mutually exclusive), error behavior, authentication needs, or the response format. This is a significant gap for such a bare description.

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 a single, well-formed sentence that immediately states the action and resource. There is zero fluff, and it is front-loaded with the main purpose. It earns the top score for conciseness.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not clarify whether at least one parameter is required, whether projectId and projectKey are alternatives or can be combined, nor what a returned custom field object contains. Given the low complexity, the agent could still infer some usage, but the ambiguous optionality of both parameters creates a real gap.

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 100%, as both projectId and projectKey have clear descriptions (numeric ID and key, with examples). The description adds no further semantics beyond 'for a project'. This falls at the baseline of 3, where the schema handles parameter meaning and the description adds little extra.

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 'Returns list of custom fields for a project' clearly states a specific verb ('Returns'), a distinct resource ('custom fields'), and scope ('for a project'). It distinguishes from all sibling tools, none of which deal with custom fields, so the agent can easily identify its unique purpose.

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?

No explicit guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives, and no exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned. However, the purpose is self-evident: if a user needs custom fields for a project, this is the tool to call. Usage is implied but not explicitly contrasted with other getters, so a mid-range score is appropriate.

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