Get Field Options

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

Annotations only indicate readOnlyHint=true. The description adds critical behavioral details: automatic resolution of global context on Cloud, separate API paths for Cloud vs Server/DC, filtering behavior (contains matches child values), and the compact format option (values_only). No contradictions.

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 efficiently structured with a concise opening sentence, followed by clear paragraphs for Cloud vs Server/DC behavior, then a bulleted Args list. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundant or verbose content.

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 complexity (7 parameters, version-specific behavior, output schema present), the description covers all necessary aspects: field type restrictions, Cloud/Server differences, parameter explanations, filtering, and output format options. The presence of an output schema relieves the description from detailing return structure.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema: it explains that context_id is auto-resolved to global context for Cloud, that project_key and issue_type are required for Server/DC, and that return_limit is applied after filtering. It also clarifies the contains filter applies to child values in cascading selects.

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 precisely states 'Get allowed option values for a custom field' and lists the field types supported (select, multi-select, etc.). It clearly differs from sibling tools like jira_search_fields, which finds field IDs rather than retrieving their options.

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 clear guidance on Cloud vs Server/DC usage, explaining when to use context_id versus project_key and issue_type. It implicitly tells the agent when not to use this tool (e.g., for other field types not listed) but does not explicitly mention alternatives.

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