dynamic_list_settings_available_fields

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It substantively discloses the UI navigation (open form, switch section, read table) and the live-source semantics. However, it omits side effects such as whether the settings form remains open, and does not explain the `close` behavior or any permission/error context.

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 tight and front-loaded: the first sentence states the concrete workflow, and the second adds the key provenance distinction. There is no redundant filler or wasted wording.

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 five undocumented parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the main purpose but not the parameter semantics, UI side effects, or return format. An agent could call the tool with defaults, but cannot confidently choose correct non-default values.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage and the prose only indirectly explains `section` via 'requested section tab'. The other parameters—`close`, `limit`, `session_id`, and `expand_tree`—are left entirely unexplained, so the description fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 states the exact operation: open the dynamic-list settings form, switch to the requested section tab, and read the 'Доступные поля' table. It also clearly defines the output: the live list of fields available for filtering/ordering/conditional-formatting/grouping. The 'authoritative source... actual form, not RAG metadata' clause helps distinguish it from metadata-based alternatives.

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 'authoritative source' sentence gives clear context: use this tool when the actual form's field set is needed rather than metadata. It does not explicitly name a sibling tool or state 'use X instead', but the context is sufficiently clear for an agent to infer when this tool is preferred.

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