custom-fields-list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It implies a read-only operation, which is likely safe, but does not disclose permissions, rate limits, or data impact. The description is adequate for a simple list operation but could be more explicit about behavior.

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?

Single, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the core action. No wasted words, and the parenthetical adds useful context without redundancy.

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 the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description covers the basic purpose. However, it lacks details on what 'values' entails and the return structure, which would be helpful since no output schema exists.

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%, with the parameter 'includeDisabled' fully described in the schema. The description adds no extra meaning about parameters; it only provides general context. Baseline score of 3 applies as the schema already handles parameter documentation.

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 tool lists custom fields and their values, with a parenthetical hint about usage on stories. It effectively communicates the verb and resource, but doesn't explicitly distinguish from potential sibling list tools, though no direct sibling for custom fields exists.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The parenthetical 'for setting on stories' provides context but doesn't mention when not to use it or suggest other tools. Among siblings, there are no other custom field tools, but better guidance would still be helpful.

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