List Shortcut Custom Fields

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only operation via 'List' and provides useful context that it returns all fields and their possible values. However, it does not explicitly state side-effect-free behavior, authentication needs, or other behavioral constraints, leaving some transparency gaps.

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 sentence with no fluff. It front-loads the action and resource, and every phrase adds value (e.g., 'all', 'possible values', 'in your Shortcut workspace'). Perfectly concise.

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 list tool, the description adequately communicates the main function and output. However, it leaves the 'dry_run' parameter unexplained and does not describe the return format beyond 'possible values'. Given no output schema and no annotations, there is room for more completeness.

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 schema includes one parameter 'dry_run' with no description (0% coverage). The tool description does not mention 'dry_run' at all, so the agent receives no additional meaning about this parameter. Since schema coverage is low, the description should have compensated, but it does not.

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', and adds 'their possible values' which specifies the output. It distinguishes this tool from other list_* siblings by focusing on custom fields with a concrete example ('Priority').

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 clear context for when to use this tool: when you need to list all custom fields in the workspace. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives, but no alternative exists among siblings for custom fields. There are no exclusions or when-not-to-use instructions, but the usage context is unambiguous.

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