Get Project Fields

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), so the bar is lower; the description still adds real behavioral context by disclosing that results are deduplicated across issue types and include unfilled fields — a non-obvious property of the response. Return format is left to the output schema, which exists.

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?

A single dense sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the deduplication caveat trailing appropriately. The em-dash aside plus parenthetical makes it slightly harder to parse than necessary, but every clause carries meaning.

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?

With a rich annotation set, a fully documented single parameter, and an output schema covering return values, the description supplies what remains: scope and deduplication semantics. A note on pagination or whether the list is create-only vs editable fields would round it out.

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?

Only one parameter and schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents project_key with an example. The description adds the notion that the key scopes results to the project's issue types, but nothing about key formatting or behavior for invalid keys. Baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Get the fields available on issues of a project') and clarifies the exact semantics via 'the create schema' and 'deduplicated across the project's issue types'. It is clear, but it never names the close siblings (jira_get_create_fields, jira_search_fields) that an agent would need to discriminate against.

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?

Usage is only implied: the parenthetical 'the create schema' hints this is for preparing issue creation, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use versus jira_get_create_fields, jira_search_fields, or jira_get_project_issue_types. The agent must infer the routing decision itself.

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