list_workspace_custom_fields

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

With no annotations, the description must convey behavioral traits. The word 'List' implies a read-only operation. The mention of status values adds some transparency, but details about pagination, ordering, or response format are missing. It is adequate but not thorough.

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 that immediately states the tool's purpose. It is perfectly concise with no unnecessary information.

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?

Given that the tool has four optional parameters and no output schema, the description is somewhat incomplete. It does not explain the function of each filter or provide context about the response. For a simple list operation, it is minimally complete.

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 should compensate. It only provides meaning for the status parameter by listing its potential values. The workspace_id, name, and entity_type parameters receive no explanation, leaving the agent to infer their purpose.

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 that the tool lists workspace custom fields and mentions the possible status values (INACTIVE, VISIBLE, INVISIBLE). This provides a clear purpose, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like list_project_custom_fields.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus other listing tools, nor any prerequisites or constraints. It does not mention alternatives for project custom fields or other criteria.

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