list_metadata_fields

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only restates the listing behavior and does not mention pagination, ordering, whether system-defined fields are included, permission needs, or response structure. This is minimal disclosure for a read operation.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It is appropriately concise, though it could carry slightly more contextual value without becoming bloated.

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, no-parameter list operation, this is minimally viable. However, with no annotations and no output schema, the description does not clarify what a 'metadata field' entry looks like, whether pagination applies, or how this tool relates to list_metadata_views and get_metadata_field.

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 only parameter is a documented placeholder that is explicitly 'not used', and there are no required parameters. The schema already fully covers parameter meaning, so the description does not need to add parameter details.

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 names a specific verb ('List') and resource ('metadata fields'), and the qualifier 'all available' makes the scope explicit. This separates it from tools like get_metadata_field or list_metadata_views, which operate on different or narrower resources.

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 about when to use this tool versus siblings such as get_metadata_field or list_metadata_views. It does not mention alternatives, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer the intended use case.

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