clickup_get_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 and does a fair job: it discloses the return payload shape (IDs, types, options) and the multi-scope batching behavior, which an agent needs to plan a call. Gaps remain on auth/permission requirements and on whether specifying a list also returns inherited folder/space fields.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the verb and scope, then return contents, then usage, then the batching note. No filler or restatement of the title.

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?

With zero required parameters and no output schema, the description covers the return contents and scope semantics well. It does not say what happens when no scope parameter is supplied, which is a real ambiguity for an all-optional tool, and permissions are unaddressed.

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 coverage is 100% and each parameter is self-documenting, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a cross-parameter insight the schema cannot express — that several scope parameters may be combined in one call — which meaningfully changes how an agent fills the object.

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?

Specific verb ('Get custom field definitions') plus the exact resource and the four supported hierarchy levels, and it names what is returned (field IDs, types, dropdown/label options). No sibling tool in the list does field-definition discovery, so differentiation is immediate.

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?

'Use this to discover available custom fields before setting values on tasks' gives a concrete when-to-use tied to a downstream action. It also states that multiple scopes can be queried at once, which guides invocation. It stops short of naming exclusions or an alternative tool, but none of the siblings is a plausible substitute.

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