jira_get_field_schema

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. The description appropriately indicates it returns field metadata, but does not explicitly state that it is read-only or what side effects (if any) exist. For a 'get' tool, this is acceptable but not rich.

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, consisting of two sentences that state the purpose and provide a practical use case. It avoids unnecessary details and is well-structured for quick understanding.

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 read-only tool with three optional parameters and no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It explains what the tool returns and why it is useful, though it does not detail the response structure or edge cases.

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 provides 100% coverage for all three parameters, each with descriptive text. The description adds a small amount of context by mentioning custom field IDs and providing an example for searchTerm, but it does not substantially enhance the schema's explanations.

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 tool retrieves JIRA fields with their IDs, names, and types, and even provides a concrete use case (discovering custom field IDs for stats aggregations). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like jira_get_create_fields, but the focus on field metadata is evident.

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 provides a clear usage scenario (discovering custom field IDs) and implies the tool is for retrieving field schemas. It does not mention when not to use it or list alternative tools, but the context is sufficient for a simple read-only operation.

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