List custom fields

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns 'enum_options with their gids' and implies a read-only behavior, which is helpful. However, it doesn't state whether the tool is destructive, requires authentication scopes, or has rate limits. The behavioral disclosure is adequate but not comprehensive for a tool that could be used in multiple scopes.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence covers the three scopes precisely, and the second sentence adds critical downstream context. Every sentence serves a purpose.

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 that there are only three optional parameters (no required ones) and no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It explains the output (enum_options with GIDs) and why it matters. The only minor gap is clarifying what happens when no parameter is provided (possibly a default workspace or error) and whether the output format has any pagination or limits, but these are less critical given the 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 100% and each parameter has a clear inline description. The tool's description reinforces that these parameters are mutually exclusive scopes (workspace, project, portfolio) and adds the crucial context that enum_options from the output feed into other dropdown tools. This goes beyond the schema by explaining why you would choose one parameter over another and what the output is used for.

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 specifies the verb 'list' and the resource 'custom fields', and distinguishes three scopes (workspace, project, portfolio). It also adds context about what is returned ('enum_options with their gids') and why that matters ('the input for every dropdown tool'), making the tool's output purpose immediately useful and differentiable from sibling tools like custom_field_create or custom_field_update.

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 that the tool is used to retrieve custom fields and enum options needed as inputs for other tools, which provides clear context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it vs alternatives (e.g., when to use asana_find instead, or when you already have the GIDs), nor does it mention that the three parameters are mutually exclusive or if providing none defaults to a specific behavior.

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