wetrack_list_metadata_fields

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

With no annotations, the description alone must convey behavioral traits. 'Get' implies a read-only operation and the filter parameters clarify what the request can do, but the description does not disclose pagination/iteration behavior, so 'Get all' is ambiguous given page and limit defaults to 10.

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 one-line summary is front-loaded and the remaining text is a focused argument list. No filler sits in the description, though the args list could be tightened slightly by not repeating default values already in the schema.

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?

This is a simple list tool with an output schema available, so missing return details are not a concern. However, it lacks usage differentiation from sibling list/management tools and leaves pagination semantics ambiguous, so an agent may not know whether to paginate or just call once.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does: resource_type and ticket_type are given explicit allowed values, ticket_type carries a dependency constraint, and page/limit defaults are spelled out. This adds substantial meaning beyond the plain schema, although is_active's semantics are only lightly described.

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 identifies the tool as fetching all custom metadata field definitions, with a specific verb ('Get all') and resource. It is distinguishable from the sibling wetrack_get_metadata_field by the word 'all', but it never explicitly names the sibling or explains the list-vs-single distinction.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives like wetrack_get_metadata_field, create_metadata_field, update_metadata_field, or delete_metadata_field. The only usage hint is the parameter-level note that ticket_type is only meaningful when resource_type is TICKET, which is not alternative tool guidance.

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