List fields

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

Annotations already establish read-only, open-world, non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context that system and custom fields are included and that Sprint/Story Points field ids are detected, but it omits permissions, response size, and any pagination or caching behavior.

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 tight sentence that front-loads the main payload (all fields with ids) before the special detection note and the query filter. No filler.

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?

For a two-parameter, read-only list tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently explains what is returned (fields, ids, detected Sprint/Story Points ids). It relies on the schema for the `site` parameter and does not explain pagination, but that is minor here.

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 both `site` and `query` are fully documented in the schema. The description only echoes the `query` filter at a high level and adds no syntax or behavior beyond the schema's 'case-insensitive substring' detail.

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 resource and scope: all system and custom fields with ids, plus special Sprint/Story Points detection. This clearly distinguishes it from field-related siblings like jira_get_create_fields, though it does not name any sibling explicitly.

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 only guidance is 'Filter with `query`,' which explains a parameter rather than when to choose this tool over alternatives. The use case (discovering field IDs, especially Sprint/Story Points) is implied but never stated as an explicit when-to-use rule.

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