getCustomFields

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

The annotation includes readOnlyHint=true, which covers the safety profile. However, the description adds no extra behavioral context such as response format, pagination, or whether it lists all custom fields. Since annotations already primarily convey the read-only nature, the description contributes minimal additional transparency.

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 extremely concise—three words with no redundant text. It is appropriately front-loaded and every word contributes to the purpose. There is no filler or unnecessary information.

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 read-only list tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally sufficient. The schema covers the parameter, and the annotation covers the safety profile. However, it lacks any information about the return value or potential limits, which could be expected but is not critical for this 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention the single parameter 'pathParams.format'. While the schema itself documents the enum (json/xml) and required status, the description adds no semantic guidance about the parameter's purpose or usage. With zero coverage, the description fails to compensate.

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' and the resource 'custom fields', making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It is distinct from sibling tools, none of which mention custom fields. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from any similar list tools, so it stops short of a 5.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Although no sibling tool directly competes with it, there is no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions. The usage is only implied by the name and description.

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