jd_list_fields

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful beyond-annotation context: the identity of the returned id and the downstream tools that consume it. It is silent on pagination or whether archived fields are included by default, which keeps it out of the top band.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in one short sentence, followed by return shape and id linkage; every sentence carries information. The return-field enumeration is slightly redundant given an output schema exists, but it is brief.

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?

Covers purpose, prerequisite, return shape, and cross-tool id semantics, and the output schema handles detailed return structure. Only gaps are pagination/result-size behavior for an organization that may hold many fields.

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 100% for the single `org_id` parameter, so the schema already carries the semantics and baseline 3 applies. The description repeats the same sourcing hint ('from jd_list_organizations') without adding format, validation, or failure behavior.

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 and resource with scope ('List the fields in one organization'), and positions itself in the tool graph by explaining that the returned `id` is the `field_id` consumed by jd_get_field, jd_list_field_operations, jd_list_guidance_lines and jd_list_work_plans. An agent can distinguish this list tool from the single-field getter without opening either schema.

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?

Gives the prerequisite for the only parameter (get `org_id` from jd_list_organizations), which is clear context for use. It does not state when to prefer this over jd_get_field (single field) or explain exclusions, so it stops short of explicit when/when-not guidance.

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