jira_search_fields

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does reasonably well: it notes fuzzy matching, the optional force-refresh behavior, and the JSON-string list return format. It implicitly reveals caching via the 'refresh' flag, though it does not explicitly state side-effect-free read-only behavior or rate-limit considerations.

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 front-loaded with a one-sentence purpose and uses a clear Args/Returns structure. It is efficient, though the per-parameter lines largely duplicate the schema descriptions and add minor redundancy. Still, it is compact and easy to scan.

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 low-complexity search tool with full schema coverage and an output schema, the description is mostly complete: it states the purpose, refresh semantics, and return format. It could improve by clarifying that this is metadata-field discovery rather than issue search, but the core invocation is well-covered.

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 baseline is 3. The description's parameter list mostly mirrors the schema descriptions and adds little beyond the 'ctx' context parameter and return type. The schema itself provides richer detail (e.g., empty keyword lists first limit fields) than the description does.

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 clearly specifies a distinct resource ('Jira fields') and a specific search behavior ('by keyword with fuzzy match'), differentiating it from siblings such as jira_search (which searches issues). The return type ('matching field definitions') further disambiguates it from generic search tools.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as jira_search or jira_get_project_issues. The description only states the operation, with no exclusions, prerequisites, or conditions for choosing this tool.

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