List catalog custom fields

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

The description aligns with the readOnlyHint annotation (listing is a read operation) but adds no new behavioral context beyond the annotations. It does not mention pagination, sorting, or error behavior, though with readOnlyHint present, the baseline bar is lower and the description is neither contradictory nor misleading.

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 short and front-loaded, but it is almost a tautology of the title, adding minimal new information. It is concise but not effectively structured to convey additional value, such as usage context or parameter details.

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 list tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete: it does not explain return format, pagination behavior, or the significance of the required catalog_id. The annotations and schema partly compensate, but the description itself leaves the agent without a full understanding of the tool's behavior.

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 provides no information about the page, limit, or catalog_id parameters. The agent must infer all semantics from parameter names alone, with no compensating details in the description.

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 verb 'List' and the resource 'custom fields for a catalog', which clearly indicates the tool's purpose. It is distinguished from the sibling tool kommo_custom_fields_list by the 'catalog' qualifier, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or clarify the ambiguous parenthetical '(list)'.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like kommo_custom_fields_list or kommo_catalog_custom_fields_get. The only hint is the 'catalog' scope in the name, which provides weak implied usage guidance.

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