get_available_fields

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

No annotations are provided, placing full burden on the description. The description only covers the output mapping and does not disclose side effects, authorization requirements, rate limits, or safety traits beyond returning data.

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 sentences with no wasted words. The action and outcome are front-loaded, and the relationship to update_ticket_fields is appended efficiently.

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?

Given 3 optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and usage context. It could be more explicit about the output format (e.g., data types), but is mostly complete for a field listing tool.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds context beyond schema: omitting ticketId returns fields for creating new tickets. This provides meaningful usage guidance for the ticketId parameter.

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 ('get all available fields'), the resource ('for a Jira ticket'), and the output ('mapping of field names to field IDs'). It also mentions the sibling tool 'update_ticket_fields', distinguishing its purpose.

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 implies usage for obtaining field IDs to be used with update_ticket_fields, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_ticket_fields. No guidance on when not to use or prerequisites.

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