Get Create Fields

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description aligns with this by describing a read operation. The description adds value by detailing the return content (field metadata, required status, schema) and the parameter origin (issue_type_id from get_project_issue_types). No contradictory information.

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 exceptionally concise: a clear first sentence, a single sentence for sibling tool guidance, a parameter list, and a return description. Every sentence serves a purpose with no 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, the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, parameters, return format, and cross-reference to related tool. The presence of an output schema is noted implicitly through the return description, making it fully adequate.

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 both parameters documented. The description adds semantic value by specifying that issue_type_id comes from 'get_project_issue_types' and provides an example. This goes beyond the schema descriptions, justifying a score above baseline.

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 verb 'get' and the resource 'fields available for creating an issue of a specific type'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like jira_get_field_options, which handles allowed values, making its purpose specific and unambiguous.

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 explicitly tells when to use an alternative tool ('Use jira_get_field_options when a returned field needs its allowed values'). It also implies usage context (retrieving fields for a specific project and issue type). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or provide comprehensive usage rules.

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