jira_list_field_values

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses supported field types but does not explicitly state the read-only nature, output format, or pagination behavior. The 'list' verb implies non-mutating, but lacks detail.

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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and no filler or redundant information.

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 simple tool with a rich schema, the description adequately covers purpose and usage. While it doesn't describe return values (no output schema), it is acceptable for a listing tool. Missing notes on pagination/defaults, but schema covers parameter details.

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 descriptions cover all 4 parameters with 100% coverage, including the enum for field and projectKey requirement for components. The description restates supported fields but adds little beyond schema; the usage context is a minor addition.

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?

Description uses specific verb 'List' with resource 'discrete values for a JIRA field' and enumerates supported field types (labels, priorities, statuses, etc.), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools focused on issues, sprints, and attachments.

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?

States 'Useful for discovering valid values before creating/updating issues,' providing a clear use case. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives, but the context is sufficient to guide an agent.

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