list_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 for behavioral disclosure. It merely states the operation is a 'get list', implying read-only behavior, but does not explain pagination, return format, required permissions, or potential errors. This is a significant gap for a tool with no output schema.

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 a single sentence, front-loaded with the action, and includes the critical scope in a compact format. No wasted words.

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 simple list tool with a single well-documented parameter, the description is largely complete. It does not explain the return structure, but that is not necessary given the straightforward nature of the operation and the lack of an output schema. Slight deduction for not mentioning any response details.

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?

The schema description covers the parameter fully (100% coverage), including the enum values. The tool description also lists the enum in parentheses, but this adds minimal value beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb ('get list') and resource ('custom fields') and scopes it by object type with an explicit enumeration of valid types. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_datatags or get_tasks.

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 the usage context: use when you need custom fields for a specific object type (task/contact/project/user/main). It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the scope is clear enough for a simple lookup tool.

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