jira_search_fields

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses fuzzy matching and force refresh, but does not mention potential side effects, rate limits, or performance implications. Basic transparency is provided.

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 concise (four lines) and front-loaded with the action. However, it includes a structured 'Args' section that partly duplicates schema information, making it slightly less lean.

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?

The description covers the return type, all parameters, and the behavior when keyword is empty. With an output schema existing, this is sufficiently complete. Minor missing detail on fuzzy match threshold.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all parameters. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema, such as 'fuzzy match' for keyword, but the schema already covers defaults and behavior.

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 states the action: 'Search Jira fields by keyword with fuzzy match.' It specifies the resource ('fields') and the operation (search), distinguishing it from sibling tools like jira_search (which likely searches issues).

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 does not explicitly provide when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as jira_search. Usage is implied by the name and description, but no exclusionary guidance or context is given.

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