get_createmeta

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the returneed content (issue types and fields), but says nothing about permissions, project visibility, or whether invalid project keys error out. For a read tool with an output schema, this is thin but not misleading.

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?

One-sentence purpose followed by an Args block, front-loaded and compact. The Args section is slightly overkill for a single parameter but does not waste much space.

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 an output schema present, return values needn't be explained, and the description correctly focuses on purpose and the parameter. But it omits any usage context relative to the create_* siblings and offers no behavioral notes for a tool with zero annotations. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate and it does partially: it names project_key and provides an example value ("KAN"). It does not clarify case sensitivity, format constraints, or resolution of invalid keys, but the example is meaningful added meaning over the bare schema.

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 ('Get') and resource ('issue creation metadata'), and parenthetically enumerates the payload (available issue types and fields). It is distinguishable from siblings like get_project or create_issue, though it doesn't explicitly name an alternative.

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 implied: it's a pre-creation lookup tool that pairs with create_issue. However, the description never states when to call it, and never points to create_issues_bulk or create_issue as the follow-up. No when-not-to-use guidance.

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