List custom fields

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only list operation but does not explicitly state that it has no side effects or discuss rate limits or pagination. The mention of Tooling API SOQL gives some context, but it does not go beyond the obvious.

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 two sentences with no fluff. It front-loads the purpose and provides a practical pointer to a sibling tool. Every word earns its place.

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?

The description is adequate for a simple list tool: it states what is returned (custom fields with Ids) and how to use the result. The schema covers parameter details. It could be slightly more explicit about the output structure, but that is not critical given the simplicity.

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?

All three parameters (limit, search, sobject) are fully described in the schema (100% coverage). The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so it meets the baseline of 3.

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 action (list), the resource (custom fields), and a distinguishing detail (Tooling API Ids). It also specifies the underlying method (SOQL query on CustomField). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like sf_list_objects or sf_list_custom_objects.

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 implies usage for enumerating custom fields but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives. It only mentions a follow-up tool (sf_delete_custom_field) without stating when to use this tool versus others, so the agent must infer the appropriate context.

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