List Custom Fields

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so there is no contradiction. However, the description adds no behavioral detail beyond 'list'—it does not mention pagination, ordering behavior, or any other runtime characteristic, so it provides no value beyond the annotations.

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 genuinely brief and front-loaded, with no filler or redundant sentences. However, it is under-specified rather than appropriately compact—it essentially repeats the title and lacks structure or detail that would help an agent use the tool.

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 all parameters are optional, annotations cover the safety profile, and an output schema exists, an agent can call the tool with defaults and understand the return shape. Still, there is no explanation of ordering semantics, pagination defaults, or when to prefer this over get_custom_field, making it only minimally complete.

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 mentions none of the three parameters. An agent cannot learn what page, ordering, or page_size mean semantically, what values ordering accepts, or how pagination behaves, so the description does nothing to compensate for the schema's lack of parameter documentation.

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 a clear verb and resource: 'List custom fields' tells an agent this retrieves the collection of custom field objects. It is not differentiated from siblings like get_custom_field or other list tools, but the resource is specific enough to avoid ambiguity.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention get_custom_field for retrieving a single field, nor does it explain when list_custom_fields is appropriate, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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