get_board_custom_fields

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It usefully signals that this returns field schema/metadata ('definitions') rather than values, which is real behavioral context, but it says nothing about permissions, whether it includes archived fields, or response shape.

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?

A single economical sentence with the resource front-loaded and no filler. It is appropriately sized, though extremely terse for a tool with no annotations to fall back on.

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 one-parameter read lookup with no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. The absence of any note on return format is acceptable since no output schema exists, but with no annotations, more disclosure about what 'definitions' includes would help.

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 the single board_name parameter is fully documented in the schema, including a pointer to list_boards. The description adds nothing beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (Get) and resource (custom field definitions) with clear board scope. The phrase 'available on the board' distinguishes it from the sibling get_task_custom_fields, which presumably returns values per task, but the differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the sibling get_task_custom_fields or list_boards. The agent must infer that this should be called before interpreting custom field values on tasks.

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