get_ticket_fields

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the tool 'Get all available fields and their metadata' without detailing what 'metadata' includes (e.g., field type, options), whether the results are filtered by the ticket, or any side effects. This lacks sufficient depth for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior.

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 a single sentence with no superfluous words. It front-loads the primary action and appends a useful context. Every word earns its place.

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 the simplicity of the tool (one parameter, no output schema), the description is adequate but leaves gaps: it does not differentiate from the sibling get_available_fields, nor does it describe the return structure or size of the output. This is acceptable for a minimal tool, but could be improved.

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% and the description adds a concrete example ('e.g., PROJECT-123') to the parameter ticketId, which aids in understanding. This adds value beyond the schema description alone.

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 and their metadata') and the resource ('for a Jira ticket'). The parenthetical adds a specific use case (finding custom field IDs). The required ticketId parameter distinguishes it from the sibling tool get_available_fields, which likely returns global fields without a ticket context.

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 mentions the tool is 'useful for finding custom field IDs', implying a use case, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_available_fields or get_ticket. No guidance on prerequisites or exclusion criteria is provided.

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