Get create metadata

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the bar for added behavioral disclosure is lower. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: the two-phase call semantics, that IDs are instance-specific, and the important 'complete=false' caveat warning that required-field lists may be incomplete.

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 three sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose, then packs the call pattern, output contents, and a critical caveat into a compact, readable structure. Every sentence earns its place.

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 no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining return semantics; it covers field id, name, required flag, allowed values, update operations, and the incomplete-read caveat. It could be more complete by describing the overall response shape, but for a read-metadata tool it is largely sufficient.

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 the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining how issueTypeId changes the call's result: omitting it lists issue types, including it returns the create screen. This clarifies parameter behavior rather than just naming it.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Reads what jira_create_issue accepts for a project.' It clearly distinguishes this metadata-read tool from siblings like jira_get_issue or jira_list_fields by anchoring it to the create-issue flow.

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 gives an explicit two-step usage pattern: call without issueTypeId to list available issue types, then call with one to get the create screen details. It also warns against guessing IDs, providing actionable guidance, though it does not explicitly contrast this tool with alternative siblings.

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