pipedrive_list_project_fields

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces safety by indicating a read operation. It adds behavioral context: includes custom fields, and notes the add-on requirement and beta status. No contradiction with annotations.

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 concise: one sentence stating the purpose followed by a parenthetical for additional context. 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 two optional parameters, the description covers the main purpose, includes custom fields, and notes the add-on/beta status. While it does not detail the return format or pagination, the schema covers cursor and limit, and the purpose is clear enough for selection.

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 input schema fully documents both parameters (cursor and limit) with descriptions for pagination. The tool description does not add further parameter semantics, but with 100% schema coverage, no additional info is needed.

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 all project field definitions including custom fields, distinguishing it from sibling tools like pipedrive_list_projects (lists projects) or pipedrive_list_project_tasks (lists 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 mentions that the tool is part of the Projects add-on and that the API is in public beta, providing context about prerequisites. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this over alternative tools like pipedrive_get_project (which might include fields) or pipedrive_list_project_templates.

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