List fields for an artifact type

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, which indicates a safe read operation. The description adds value by specifying the return content (numeric IDs and allowed values) and that it lists both system and custom fields, giving more behavioral context than the annotation alone.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, then a direct usage tip. Every word earns its place; no filler or repetition of schema details.

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?

With no output schema, the description appropriately mentions that the result includes numeric IDs and allowed values, giving the agent a sense of what to expect. The tool has only two simple parameters, and the description covers its purpose and usage well, though it could mention pagination or error behavior for full completeness.

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 both parameters (projectId and objectType), so the baseline is 3. The description does not add additional parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already states, but it does clarify the purpose of the returned field IDs.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') with a clear resource ('system and custom fields for an artifact type in a project') and adds useful detail about the output (numeric IDs and allowed values). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that operate on specific artifact types like test cases or requirements.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use this to discover field IDs needed by the 'fields' parameter on create/update tools.' This gives clear context, though it does not mention when not to use it or name alternative tools.

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